Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Mosmat Lilawati Devi W/o late Om Prakash Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
Sumendra Devi, W/o late Jagdish Ram – Respondent
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
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles regarding impleadment of parties as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case....
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that even if a party is not necessary, their presence c....
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
