The main legal point established is that the impleadment of a party in a civil suit is governed by the principles of whether the party is a necessary or proper party, and their presence is necessary for the complete adjudication of the suit.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

IA 4924/2014

1. Vide this order, I would decide IA 4924/2014, filed by Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Pandey under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Order 1 Rule 8A and Section 151 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.2.

2. The averments averred in the application are that during the course of hearing on April 9, 2013 as per the directions of this Court, the applicant was supplied a copy of CS(OS) No. 651/2013. The applicant intervened in the matter as a caveator and also appeared before this Court in this matter on November 7, 2013. In W.P.(C) 6615/2012 filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of on October 17, 2012, the NDMC had stated before the Court that they will hold a public auction within 3-4 months in respect of Taj Mansingh Hotel. But even after 12 months of their promise before the Court, the NDMC officials did not held the auction and thus violated their promise. The petitioner also filed SLP(Civil) No. 9142/2013 before Supreme Court of India, wherein CBI enquiry is prayed along with other reliefs. The Supreme Court issued notice to the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff only for the purpose of delay and to linger on the process filed the present CS (OS) No. 651/2013 in collusion with NDMC. In SLP Civil No. 9142/2013 the Supreme Court of India specifically requested this Court to complete the pleading/ filling of documents before January 21, 2014 in this suit.

3. It is also averred by the applicant that in this suit, in para 26, the plaintiff specifically mentioned the name of the applicant, Writ Petition (Civil) No.6615/2012 and about his role. He has averred, that it is necessary to allow the present applicant as a party to unearth the truth as the same relates to public property. The lease, having expired in 2011, the NDMC was required to expedite the auction of the said property but it was not done despite the fact that date of expiry of lease was known in advance and preparation before hand could have been made for public auction. But the NDMC extended the lease for a period of one year from October 2011 to October 2012 in favour of the plaintiff. The NDMC further extended the lease in favour of the plaintiff from October 2012 to October 2013, which is in violation of the License Deed/Collaboration Agreement dated December 18, 1976 and contrary to the opinion dated September 14, 2012 of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. The grounds urged in support of the application, primarily are, that (i) the SLP (Civil) No.9142 of 2013 filed by the applicant herein, involving the same issue being agitated in the present suit, is pending before the Supreme Court of India, wherein the plaintiff and the defendant are the respondents; (ii) the present suit has been filed in collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant; (iii) the presence of the applicant is necessary in order to enable this Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit; (iv) according to the applicant, the applicant apprehends that in case he is not impleaded as one of the defendants, entire/true facts of the case will not likely to be placed before this Court to enable this Court for proper adjudication of the case; (v) by adding the applicant to the array of parties, no prejudice will be caused to the parties already on record; neither will fair trial of the questions in controversy be prejudiced. On the other hand, not making the applicant party to the present proceedings will cause serious prejudice to the economy of the State. No effective action has been taken by the NDMC despite the assurance to hold a public auction within 3-6 months given to the Division Bench of this Court. NDMC as a public authority is obligated to dispose of its properties at market value. In the present case, NDMC has extended the licence of the hotel property when the license deed itself not contemplate any extension. The NDMC has extended the license deed without inviting public bid