The inclusion of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is crucial for the effective resolution of disputes involving public interests, ensuring that all relevant facts are presented for adjudication.

ORDER

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 19/4/2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 34/204/2017 title as Shambhu Dayal vs Devi Prasad. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and ordered to implead Nagar Parishad, Alwar as party to the suit.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Nagar Parishad, Alwar is neither necessary nor effected party in view of the issue involved in the suit and the prayer made therein and Nagar Parishad, Alwar has no role to play. He further submits that earlier defendant moved an application for summoning some documents from the Nagar Parishad, Alwar and the learned court below rejected the same vide order dated 7/1/2020 and therefore now at this stage, the application for impleadment of Nagar Parishad, Alwar is not tenable. Counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and ors vs Bibhu Prasad Sahoo reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773 decided on 16/9/2022 to submit that no-one can be forced to join any person to a suit proceedings filed by him.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that prayer of plaintiff-petitioner in the suit is in regard to construction made over the public way as admitted by the plaintiff in para-3 of the plaint. He further submits the court below has rightly appreciated the material available on record and passed order for impleadment of Nagar Parishad, Alwar as a party to the suit so that Nagar Parishad, Alwar may make clear the position in regard to the public way.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Plaintiff applicant in his plaint made a prayer for passing a decree as the defendants has made encroachment over the public way of width 9 feet and 7 inches and in para 3 of plaint it is specifically stated that dispute relates to encroachment of public way. The defendants claims that public way is only of 3 feet and 6 inches and not over 9 feet and 7 inches as stated by the plaintiff.

5. Considering the dispute of width of public way, learned court below allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading Nagar Parishad, Alwar as party to the suit proceedings so that proper status of public way can be placed before the court. The court below has also observed that since the dispute relates to the public way, Nagar Parishad is a proper party.

6. In view of the above, order of court below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and therefore does not call for any interference of this court. This court is also of the view that case law cited by the petitioner of Suddhamayee Pattnaik (supra) is not applicable as the issue of encroachment over public way involved in the present case can be ascertained by Nagar Parishad, Alwar which can place before court the correct facts for properly adjudication of the dispute.

7. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

8. Stay application is also dismissed.