The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Rohtas in Title Suit No. 68 of 2001 whereby and whereunder two petitions, both dated 16.11.2016, of the petitioners for their impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) have been rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are purchasers of purchasers of the suit land. The petitioners were having not any knowledge of the pending litigation. The learned trial court has rejected the applications for impleadment only on the ground that since purchases have been made during pendency of the present suit and also evidence of defendants was being recorded, the impleadment at the stage would hamper the course of adjudication of the instant matter. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has not considered the fact that if the petitioners were having any semblance of interest, they are necessary or proper parties. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has further rejected the impleadment petitions on the ground that if such impleadments are allowed, numerous persons would come to intervene claiming themselves to be purchasers.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents submits that he has no objection if the petitioners are made parties.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the parties.

6. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code reads as under: -

“10 (2). Court may strike out or add parties – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 has discussed the law relating to impleadment of the parties. It will be relevant to quote paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 22, 25 & 27 of the said judgment:-

“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.— The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct