Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Rajesh S/o Late Shri Banshilal Pathak – Petitioner
Versus
Abbas Ali S/o Fakrudin Bohra – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
CPC - Impleadment of Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which allows for the addition of necessary and proper parties to a suit. The court interpreted that the presence of the third respondent was essential for a complete adjudication of the case, as her rights would be affected by the outcome. The court emphasized the principle of dominus litis but clarified that the trial court has discretion to add parties to ensure effective resolution of disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for encroachment on jointly held property. The third respondent sought to be added as a defendant, claiming title and possession over the disputed plots. The trial court allowed her application, which the petitioners challenged in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the third respondent was a necessary party due to her claimed rights over the property and the pending separate suit against her. The court held that her presence was essential for a complete and effective adjudication of the case.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the third respondent's application for impleadment as a party defendant in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that under Order I Rule 10 CPC, a party can be added if their presence is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate the matter. The court also reiterated that the principle of dominus litis does not preclude the addition of necessary parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the third respondent's impleadment as a necessary party.
ORDER :
1. Though the matter has been listed in the fresh category, however, on the joint request of the parties, the matter is being heard today itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 166/2022, whereby application preferred by third respondent under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking her impleadment as party defendant in the suit has been allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit (Annex.1) against the respondent No. 1 and 2/defendants before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was registered as original Civil Suit 166/2022. The relief against respondent No. 1 and 2 was sought qua plot Nos. 93 and 94 situated at Shastrinagar near Badla Chauraha, Bhilwara. In the suit, it was inter-alia alleged that the undivided suit property is jointly held by the partnership firm M/s Moti Metal Industries, of which initially partners were S/Sh. Biharilal Pathak, Motilal and Banshilal Pathak. It was further alleged that Sh. Banshilal Pathak died and thus, his wife and son were introduced as partners and the petitioners are also the legal representatives of late Sh Banshilal Pathak.
4. The grounds for the filing of the suit were that on 02.11.2022 the respondent No. 1 and 2/defendants encroached on the land of the petitioners and started raising construction of basement and when the petitioners got the knowledge regarding the same the petitioners asked the respondents No. 1 and 2 to produce the title documents however, the respondents denied and thereafter the respondent No. 2 also obtained electricity connection on the property in question.
5. The respondents Nos.1 and 2/defendants filed a reply to the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 24.11.2022 and 25.01.2023 respectively (Annex.3 & 4). Respondent No. 1/defendant stated therein that he has no nexus with the property and the encroachment and no construction has been done on the property in question. The respondent No. 2 stated therein that plot No. 94 has been sold to wife of Respondent No. 1 on 15.10.2015 and thus now there is no nexus of the respondent No. 2 with the property in question.
6. During the course of the suit proceedings, the respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 04.02.2023 (Annex.4) under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleading her as defendant in the suit filed by the petitioners while contending therein that she has the title and the possession over the plot in dispute.
7. Learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.5), which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
8. In addition to that the petitioners have preferred a suit against the respondent No. 3 before learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara being Civil Suit No. 289/2023 Rajesh vs. Akila Bai in which summons were issued to the respondent No. 3 on 01.12.2023 as evident from the copy of the suit, order sheet and the E court case status. (Annex.6, 7 and 8 respectively).
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 4.08.2023 (Annex.5) has been passed illegally and arbitrarily and the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and the facts and laws of the case. Learned counsel submits that as the respondent No. 3 was and is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the suit against respondent No. 1 and 2 and the cause of action was also against them and not against the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No. 3 is nothing but an encroacher on the land that belongs to the partnership firm and the petitioners are the partners thus, the trial court cannot extend the cause of action against the respondent No. 3.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
The court affirmed that a necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the discretion to add such parties under Order I Rule 10....
Object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that person whose presence is necessary before Court, is made a necessary party to effectually adjudicate upon rights of parties and settle all questions involved in ....
The court clarified the criteria for necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a party's independent claim does not warrant inclusion in a suit if it do....
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.
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.
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
