Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
P.P. BHATT, J.
Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Raj Singh - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2243 of 2011
Decided on : 08.05.2015
For the Petitioner:M/s. Lalit Kumar Lal & K.K. Ambastha, Advocates
For the Respondent:M/s. Ramakant Tiwary & Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order-1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the principles of impleadment of a party in a suit based on acquired interest in the subject matter.
Headnote:
Order-1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of Party in Suit - Order-1 Rule 10 of the CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside an order passed by the lower court in an eviction suit and to be added as a party in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, who had acquired an interest in the subject matter of the suit through a registered sale deed, should be added as a party in the interest of justice and equity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be added as a party in the eviction suit, considering the transfer of property and the petitioner's acquired interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order-1 Rule 10 of the CPC and referenced the decisions of 'Amit Kumar Shaw and another versus Farida Khatoon and another' and 'Thomson Press (India) Limited versus Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others' to support the impleadment of the petitioner as a party in the suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the petitioner to be impleaded as party-plaintiff No.3 in the suit.
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for setting aside the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Munsif, Hazaribagh, in Eviction Suit No. 20/09, whereby the learned court-below illegally rejected the petition dated 19.07.2010 filed on behalf of the intervenor/ petitioner under Order-1 Rule 10 of the CPC. It is further prayed that necessary direction may be issued to the learned court-below to add the petitioner as a party in the suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned order dated 10.3.2011 and other materials placed on record.
3. It appears that the petition was filed under Order-1 Rule 10 of the CPC on behalf of the petitioner. Order-1 Rule-10 of the CPC reads as under:
“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2)Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.
(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.- Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.
(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.”
4. It appears that during pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have jointly transferred the land and house measuring an area of 6060 sq. ft. comprising of Plot Nos. 790 and 791 bearing Holding Nos. 212 and 213 respectively in favour of petitioner vide registered deed No.5430/5264, dated 28.04.2010 and hence, the petitioner became interested party in the suit.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on filing of a fresh suit by the petitioner against the contesting defendant shall amount to multiplicity of the litigations as also various legal obligations and hence, it is desirable that in the interest of justice and equity, petitioner be added as party in the suit so that right, title and interest of the petitioner, which is acquired through registered sale deed can be safeguarded.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:
(i) “Amit Kumar Shaw and another versus Farida Khatoon and another, reported in 2005 SAR (Civil) 515” and
(ii) “Thomson Press (India) Limited versus Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 397” .
7.Paragraph- 16 of the decision, in the case of “Amit Kumar Shaw and another versus Farida Khatoon and another, reported in 2005 SAR (Civil) 515” is reproduced here
