A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed; a plaintiff has the discretion to choose parties in a suit.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, who is the contesting party, being the plaintiff in the suit.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-IX, Ranchi, in O.S. No. 442 of 2014 [MCA No. 1001 of 2023], whereby, the application filed under Order-I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6, 9, 11 and 12 has been rejected by the said court.

3. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Partition Suit No. 442 of 2014 was instituted for preparation of a preliminary decree for partition. He submits that the petitioners were the defendants in the said suit and the partition suit is between the brothers and sisters and one of the brother has instituted the said partition suit. He further submits that the plaintiff, who is the respondent No. 1 has made certain arrangement with one M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors in the shape of development agreement and in view of that the petitioners had filed a petition under Order-I, Rule-10(2) of the CPC, which was rejected. He then submits that by the impugned order dated 11.03.2024, the learned court in absence of any reason has rejected the same, in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside, as M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors is a necessary party to decide the partition suit. He relied in the case of Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam & Ors. 2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 178.

4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in light of the above judgment, M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors is a necessary party and the learned court has erroneously rejected the same and the learned court has not considered the same in accordance with law and in absence of any ground, the petition has been dismissed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the said order, as M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors is a stranger and the learned court has rightly not allowed to add as a party, as the plaintiff is a dominus lities and cannot be forced to add a party against whom, the plaintiff has not sought for any relief. He submits that there are two principles to allow the said impleadment, as the first one is that there must be a right to some relief against such person in respect of controversy involved in the suit and second is no effective decree can be passed in absence of such party. He submits that these two principles are not fulfilling for adding the M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors as a party, in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said order. He relied a judgment of five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-7 has held as follows:

“7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who air necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law’ on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; 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 question involved in the proceeding.”

6. He further relied upon a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of The Benares Bank Ltd. Benares vs. Bhagwan Das & Ors. AIR (34) 1947 Allahabad 18, where in Para-8, it has been held as follows:

“8. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal upon the ground that the appeal was incompetent inasmuch as the creditors, whom the appellant omitted to imp