The court exercised its discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead necessary and proper parties, considering reason and fair play. The court also considered the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the concept of adverse possession in determining the impleadment of the defendants.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 16344/2018

1. An application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for impleadment of Mr. O.P Manchanda as defendant no. 3.

2. It is submitted in the application that the Plaintiff has filed a suit for Declaration, Cancellation of documents, Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the Suit Property bearing House No. 106-C/B, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, New Delhi.

3. It is submitted in the application that Defendant no. 1 in its Written Statement dated 1st April, 2013 had stated that the suit property is in possession of one Mr. O.P. Manchanda, resident of 169, Kariyappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 in whose favor the documents of Title have been executed by the Plaintiff. It is claimed that although precise details of the alleged Title documents executed in favour of Mr. O. P Manchanda which are in fact forged and fabricated, were mentioned along with the payment details and bank drafts but deliberately the documents were not filed on record.

4. The Plaintiff moved an Interlocutory application vide I.A. NO. 2488/2015 seeking production of documents as mentioned in the Written Statement by the Defendant no. 1. Six weeks time was granted to the Defendant no. 1 for filing the documents vide Order dated 04.02.2015. However, Defendant no. 1 chose not to comply with these Orders and the subsequent Order dated 17.03.2016. On 29.07.2016, learned counsel on behalf of the Defendant no. 1 gave a Statement that he does not have copies of the documents and undertook to provide necessary details of person referred to in the documents and also to file an affidavit affirming his Statement. The Order dated 29.07.2016 was also not complied with and the affidavit was filed only on 23.08.2016 but it was not in terms of the Order dated 29.07.2016 as details of Mr. Virender Prakash were not mentioned in the affidavit.

5. The conduct of the defendant no. 1 speaks for itself as he has been misleading this Court for the last five years and not coming up with the documents, details of which were mentioned in the Written Statement.

6. The Plaintiff has filed a Suit making unambiguous averments in the Plaint and the Replication that the documents were executed in favour of defendant no. 1 and the possession of the suit property was handed over to him. In this factual situation, it has become imperative to implead Mr. O.P. Manchanda as Defendant no. 3, as Defendant no. 1 has allegedly transferred the possession to him on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. No effective adjudication of the issues can be done in the absence of Mr. O.P. Manchanda. Hence the prayer is made that Mr. O.P. Manchanda may be impleaded as a party.

7. The Defendant no. 1 has contested this application and taken a preliminary objection that the application is a gross misuse of the process of the Court. The Plaintiff has devised a novel way to circumvent the liability arising out of the non-joinder of necessary party by preferring this present application at a highly belated stage by concealing material facts. It is claimed that Defendant no. 1 in its Written Statement dated 05.01.2013 had disclosed complete facts that the suit property was sold to Mr. O.P. Manchanda by the plaintiff by executing several documents in his favour. It was further pointed out that Mr. O.P. Manchanda was a necessary party and all the details and the address of Mr. O.P. Manchanda was provided.

8. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application bearing I.A. No. 21117/2013 under Section 151 and 34 read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for directions to place a Public Notice in regard to the suit property but the application was dismissed vide Order dated 08.02.2013.

9. The Replication was filed to the Written Statement of defendant no. 1 wherein the Plaintiff consciously and willingly denied the factum of having executed the docume