Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Alok Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Anjani Gupta & Anr – Respondent
CM(M) 80 of 2020, CM APPL. 13924 of 2021, CM APPL. 32795 of 2021 & CM APPL. 43244 of 2021, CM(M) 81 of 2020, CM APPL. 32796 of 2021 & CM APPL. 43246 of 2021, CM(M) 87 of 2020, CM APPL. 32615 of 2021, CM APPL.
Decided On : 22-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. Puneet Goyal and Mr. Ujwal Ghai, Advocates, for the Petitioners. For the Respondents.
Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Abhishek Chabbra, Ms. Tejaswini Chandrashekhar and Mr. Umang Tyagi, Advocates, for the Respondents.

The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the necessity of a party's presence in a pending lis and the non-condonability of delay in seeking impleadment.

Headnote:
Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [Benami Transactions Act, 1988, CPC]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application seeking impleadment in a suit for partition. They argued that the suit property was purchased using joint family funds and that they were necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. The respondent claimed 50% ownership of the property, while the petitioners claimed the funds used for purchase came from joint family funds.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were complete strangers to the suit and that their attempt to implead themselves was a ploy to delay the proceedings. The court also noted the deep acrimony between the parties due to their personal relations and the existence of multiple cross cases between them. The delay of four years, which had become ten years, was deemed not condonable.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were necessary or proper parties to the suit for partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the test to implead a party to a pending lis would be a person without whose presence the court would not be able to evaluate the facts and evidence which are intrinsically intertwined with the issues that arise therein. The court also emphasized that the delay in seeking impleadment was not condonable.
Final Decision: The petitions for impleadment were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral) [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioners challenge the order dated 13.09.2019 in CS No. 236/2019 titled as "Anjani Gupta vs. Vandana Gupta", whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment on the ground that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the lis.

2. Mr. Anurag Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by way of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has overlooked four crucial aspects, which are as under:

(i) That the respondent is claiming 50% ownership of the suit property for which she has not paid at all and the petitioners claim that the amounts which have been part of the sale consideration came from joint family funds which has been overlooked by the learned Trial Court.

(ii) The respondent purposely did not implead the petitioner in the suit for partition knowing fully well that had they been impleaded in the ordinary course, the suit as it stands today would have been dismissed having no legs to stand.

(iii) Mr. Jain, learned counsel has very vehemently argued that the case of the petitioners is that the suit property was purchased out of joint family funds in the names of both the respondent Nos. 1 as well as respondent No. 2.

(iv) Learned counsel submits that the said purchase was made keeping in view the relation which the petitioners shared with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that both are daughters-in-law of the family of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel submits that by the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has committed a material irregularity in not permitting them to be a part of the proceedings inasmuch as the factum of joint family funds being invested in the subject suit property can alone be proved by having the petitioners on record, failing which the fact regarding the manner in which and in the consideration wherefrom the sale was made will not be placed before the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel referred to para 3 of the plaint to buttress the argument that the respondent No.1 herself agreed and admitted that the original sale deed is in the custody and possession of the defendant therein as well as Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, one of the petitioners herein and also admitted that Sh. Om Prakash Gupta was the sole care taker of the suit property.

5. On that basis, learned counsel submits that keeping in view the averments of the plaint itself, the petitioners become necessary and proper parties for the adjudication of the core issues involved in the lis.

6. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to page No. 67 of the paper book and particularly to the second part of para 3 of the reply filed by respondent No.1 to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to submit that the respondent No.1 herself has put across the issue relating to the bar of defence under Benami Transactions Act and the learned Trial Court despite the arguments thereon being addressed, has not really answered the question as to which of the parties will be able to answer this bar under Benami Transactions Act, 1988 even if it is taken on the face value.

7. Subsequently, learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to page No. 68 and para 5 of the said reply to submit that the allegations contained therein are untrue inasmuch as the case of the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 is that the respondent No.1 is merely a housewife, who did not have the necessary funds to purchase the suit property in the ratio of 50% along with that of the respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel submits that the issues regarding the property being HUF property, the issue also regarding the joint family funds, as also the fact as to who has paid would be a relevant consideration for the learned Trial Court to have impleaded the petitioners as necessary and proper parties to the suit.

9. Le