Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Kiran Kumar Xalxo, son of Late Franklin Xalxo - Petitioner
Versus
Yusuf Khan, son of Late Matbar Khan and Ors. - Opp. Parties
C.M.P. No.1044 of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2024
[IMPLEADMENT] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [Order I Rule 10(2), Article 227] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., which allows for the addition of necessary or proper parties to a suit. The court emphasized that a party can be impleaded if they have a prima facie interest in the property in question, and that the trial court has the discretion to allow such applications to ensure complete adjudication of the issues involved. The court also referenced the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, clarifying that it can only intervene in cases of manifest error or gross abuse of jurisdiction.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to be impleaded in a declaratory suit regarding land ownership, claiming a 1/3rd share based on their familial connection to the deceased owner. The trial court allowed their application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., leading to the current petition challenging this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the impleadment, as the applicants demonstrated a prima facie interest in the property. The court noted that the presence of the applicants was necessary for a complete adjudication of the case.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of the applicants as parties to the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. at a late stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the general rule allows a plaintiff to choose their defendants, but this is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) which permits the addition of necessary or proper parties to ensure complete justice. The court emphasized the importance of allowing parties with a prima facie interest to be heard in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of the applicants as necessary parties to the suit.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khunti in Original Suit No. 20 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the applicants, namely, Anita Rani Tirkey daughter of Late Kalyan Tirkey and Grace Panna Tirkey on 13.01.2021 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleadment as party to the suit, has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the instant petition which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.20 of 2019 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khunti against the Defendants praying therein decree for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession as well as the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 over Schedule-A lands and also for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24.07.2018 is illegal and the same may be cancelled.
3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that the lands of R.S. Khata No.136 of Village Lodhma was recorded as Bakast Malik in the name of Mr. A.T.PEE PEE Saheb and he died leaving behind two daughters namely Penelope Elsie Wilson Ross Hurst and Mrs. Justina Marion Noe Deery and they became the tenure holder of the lands and settled the lands measuring 17.80 Acres of Plot Nos. 451, 469, 474, 477, 478, 475 and 476 of Khata No.136 of the said village to Ida Khalkho, Hitkari Dadel and Grace Panna Tirkey by Registered Deed of Settlement in the year 1952 and the settlee came into possession over the same and after vesting Jamabandi with respect to the aforementioned lands was opened in their names and they continued in possession over the same.
4. Ida Khalkho died leaving behind his only son Kiran Kumar Xalxo who is the plaintiff in the present suit and Hitkar Dadel died leaving behind two sons namely Lalit Salil J. Minz and Srikant Minz who are Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and as such the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the absolute owners of the suit property fully described in Schedule-A to the plaint.
5. The plaintiff came to know that the Defendant No.1 without having any right, title, interest and possession, executed sale deed in favour of the Defendant No.2 on 24.07.2018 practicing fraud although the mother of the plaintiff acquired the land in 1952 by virtue of Registered Deed and continued in possession thereof being the rightful owner so long alive and at present the plaintiff is in possession over the lands which was allotted in the share of the mother of the plaintiff.
6. In the above suit, the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. The case was posted for hearing final arguments and the argument of the plaintiff was heard in part on 22.09.2022.
7. The Intervenors filed a separate petition in the said suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying therein for their addition as Defendants in the suit on the ground that they have got 1/3rd share in the suit property.
8. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the said petition stating therein that the claim of the Intervenor is completely different as they are claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property which cannot be allowed in the instant suit moreover the Judgment and Decree passed in Partition Suit No. 191 of 1964 is nullity and the same was never given effect to nor Grace Panna Tirkey ever came in possession over the suit property on the strength of the said judgment and as such the Intervenors are neither necessary parties nor proper parties in the above suit and the petition has been filed at belated stage when the suit was posted for hearing final arguments.
9. The learned court, by terms of order dated 26.09.2022, allowed the petition filed by the Intervenors under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. and impleaded them as Defendant
The court established that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., a party can be impleaded if they demonstrate a prima facie interest in the property, and the trial court has the discretion to allow....
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
The court may compel the addition of necessary parties to a suit despite the plaintiff's choice, ensuring all interested parties can be adjudicated effectively.
The court established that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 do not extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact, and that the rights claimed under an unprobated Will must be a....
The court established that the validity of claims based on an unprobated Will must be determined through judicial proceedings, and that the absence of probate does not automatically invalidate such c....
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.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action, and must be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case wit....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the petitioners' application to join the suit, emphasizing the necessity of parties and the principle of dominus litis in civil proceedings.
Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of power by subo....
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
