Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Daulat Ram, S/o. Sh. Ravta Ram Bhadu – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash, W/o. Sh. Chetram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties and perused their written notes of argument.
2. By the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 passed separately in two different civil suits, prayer of respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 above, for impleadment in the suit as party defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., has been allowed.
3. The order passed in Civil Original Case No.355/2005 is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6352/2025 (supra) and the order passed in Civil Original Case No.3168/2005 is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6381/2025 (supra).
4. The challenge is on the ground that respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 are not necessary/proper party to the suit. An effective decree can be passed in the suit without adding them as party. Rather, their impleadment would lead to mis-joinder of cause of action and unwarrantedly would widen the nature and scope of litigation, which ultimately would lead to miscarriage of justice.
5. Factual background of the case is that the suit property is situated at Vallabh Garden near the town of Shivbari. The original Patta was issued in favour of former Maharaja late Sh. Sadul Singh Ji vide Misal No.79 on 21.10.1948. Maharaja Sadul Singh passed away be
The court held that the impleadment of parties is permissible only if they are necessary or proper for effective adjudication, and claims for probate must adhere to limitation periods.
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that even if a party is not necessary, their presence c....
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
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.
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 presence of a party whose presence is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy should be permitted in a civil suit. A suit for injunction can include parties whose presence would enab....
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
