SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(HP) 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Lekh Ram & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 98 of 2018
Decided On : 10-07-2018

Important Points

The binding effect of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the necessity to ensure an effective decision upon the issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Subject

Civil Law - Joinder of Parties

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.1 R.10

Headnote

JOINDER - Necessary Parties - The court allowed the addition of necessary parties in the array of defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, emphasizing the binding effect of the provision and the necessity to ensure an effective decision upon the issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction regarding joint land, while the defendants contended that the suit land is jointly owned and objected to nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the petition and allowed the addition of necessary parties, directing the trial court to decide the civil suit within six months.

Issues: Suit for injunction, objection to nonjoinder of necessary parties, addition of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding effect of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the necessity to ensure an effective decision upon the issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to decide the civil suit within six months.

Advocates Appeared:
B.L. Soni, Adv., Aman Parth Sharma, Adv., Vijay Bhatia, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J —The plaintiff/petitioner herein, instituted a suit for rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, visavis, the suit Khasra Numbers, besides, also prayed for rendition, of, a decree, for mandatory injunction, visavis, the suit Khasra Numbers. The defendants/respondents herein, in, their writtenstatement contended, that the suit land is joint interse the plaintiff, and, the defendants. They also raised an objection qua the suit being bad for nonjoinder, of, necessary parties, in as much as, as one of the brothers'' of the defendants, who, also alongwith the parties at contest, though hence jointly owning the undivided suit property his rather, remaining unimpleaded, despite, his being both a proper, and, a necessary party, in the lis.

2. Even though the aforesaid objection, devolving, upon the suit, hence being bad for nonjoinder, of, necessary parties, was taken at the earliest, yet, the plaintiff belatedly therefrom, instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking therein a relief, of, adding in the array of defendants'', the LRs of deceased Bagshi Ram, the brother of the defendants, who alongwith them, and, the plaintiff, is, espoused to be jointly owning the suit property, (i) thereupon, he was hence a necessary party, for effectively clinching, the entire gamut of the controversy engaging the parties at contest (ii) more importantly, for also ensuring rendition, of, an effective finding upon the issue appertaining to suit being bad, for nonjoinder, of necessary parties.

3. Even though the aforesaid endeavor was belated, yet, the mere belated institution, of the aforesaid application, was, not sufficient, to, drive the learned trial Court, to, hence dismiss the application, (a) as, the mandate of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has a binding effect, and, also covers all stages of litigation, (b) especially when for covering, the menace of multiplicity of litigation, and, for smothering, the entire gamut, of, the controversy engaging the parties at lis, besides visavis the suit khasra Numbers, and, also for ensuring rendition of, a binding and effective decree, upon, all the litigants concerned (c) thereupon hence the addition of the aforesaid in the array of defendants, is, both just and necessary.

The aforesaid trite principle, seems to be omitted, from, being borne in mind, by the learned trial Court, rather, the learned trial Court has misdirected itself and failingly concentrated, upon, the mere factum, of the application aforesaid, being instituted at an belated stage. Since the addition of the aforesaid in the array of the defendants, is, necessary, for enabling the learned trial Court, to, pronounce an effective, decision upon the issue appertaining, to the suit being bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, also when hence would cure the aforesaid initial lapses, if any, as made by the plaintiff, thereupon an affirmative order, was, enjoined to be recorded thereon.

4. In view of the above, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly allowed. The learned trial Court concerned, is, directed to decide the Civil Suit within a period of six months. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top