A person cannot be added as a party to a case merely because he would be incidentally affected by the ultimate judgment that may be passed therein or that he is interested in the fruit of the judgment.

1. This is an application by one Tilak Raj Sharma for being impleaded as a party to writ petition No. 206 of 1974 filed on November 27, 1974, by Smt. Bhagwanti, against the Custodian General Jammu and Kashmir and the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jammu.

2. The case of the applicant is that as respondent No. 2 has vided his order No. RS 911-74 EP dated November 26, 1974, leased out to him for a period of one year two rooms in the upper storey of the house in relation to which Smt. Bhagwanti has brought the aforesaid writ petition and as he cannot get possession of the said rooms in view of the ad interim order directing maintenance of status quo, he is a necessary and a proper party to the writ petition and it is in the fitness of things that he should he added as a party to the petition.

3. Mr. B. R. Chowdhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner has opposed the application and has contended that no person can under law be added as a party to a case merely because he would be incidentally affected by the ultimate judgment that may be passed therein or that he is interested in the fruit of the judgment.

4. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It cannot be disputed that the governing principle for impleading a third party to a suit or proceeding is avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and that it is only a necessary or a proper party that can be impleaded in a suit or other proceeding, which means that the court has no jurisdiction to add a party unless it is a necessary or a proper party. A person is said to be necessary party if he sought to be joined as a party i.e., in whose absence no effective judgment, decree or order can be passed, and a person can be said to be a proper party if his presence before the court is necessary to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in a suit or a proceeding. It was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Udi Narain Singh V. Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 786, that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding.

6. It follows, therefore, that the guiding consideration in the matter of addition of parties is whether the court can between the parties as arrayed before it effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle questions involved in the case. If the question or questions at issue between the parties can be worked without any one else being brought in, the stranger should not be added as a party to the litigation. The fact that a stranger may eventually be affected by the judgment or the execution of the decree or order against the defendant or the respondent, as the case may be, is not a cogent ground to make him a party. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Narayan Chandre Garai and ors v. Matri Bhander Pvt. Ltd. and another, A.I.R. 1974 Calcutta, 358. In Deputy Commissioner Hardoi in charge court of Wards Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain and ors, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 521 at page 526, their lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that the eventual interest of a party in the fruits of the litigation cannot be held to be a true test of impleading the parties according to the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. In Hochtief Gammon V. Industrial Tribunal. Bhubaneshwar, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1746 at page 1750, their lordships observed:

"The test always must be, is the addition of the party necessary to make adjudication itself effective and enforceable."

8. In Fateh Raj and another Vs. Suraj Roop and another A.I.R. 1969 Rajasthan 252 Jagat Narayan J after referring to a decision in Amen V. Rapheal Tiuk and Sons Ltd. 1956-1 All ER 273 said at page 253

"In the above decision a note in the Annua

Click Here to Read the rest of this document