Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 187
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
K. Dharmar and Others - Respondents
C.R.P. Nos. 1076 and 1077 of 1994
Decided On : 10 February 1995
A person can be impleaded as a party to a suit under O.1, R.10, CPC only if their presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
Headnote:
IMPLEADING ADDITIONAL PARTIES - O.1, R.10, CPC - NECESSARY PARTY - DIRECT INTEREST - COMMERCIAL INTEREST - JOINT TRIAL.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant has no right to run a rice mill in the suit property, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from running the rice mill, and damages for loss caused. The defendant filed an application to implead additional defendants, respondents 2 to 4, on the ground that they were necessary parties for a joint trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that respondents 2 to 4 were not necessary parties to the suit and that the defendant's purpose in impleading them was merely to suit his own convenience. The court further held that the plaintiff's claim could be adjudicated without impleading respondents 2 to 4.
Issues: Whether respondents 2 to 4 were necessary parties to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: A person can be impleaded as a party to a suit under O.1, R.10, CPC only if their presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. A person who has a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, as opposed to a commercial interest, is considered a necessary party. The mere fact that a person may be affected by the outcome of the litigation does not make them a necessary party.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of the lower court impleading respondents 2 to 4 as additional defendants.
Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 419 of 1989, on the file of the District Munsuf's Court, at Thirumangalam.
2. The reliefs sought in the plaint are as follows :-
"(a) declaring that the defendant has no right of any kind to run the rice mill in the suit property in view of the permit given to the plaintiff alone;
(b) for a permanant injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agents, etc., from running the rice mill and hulling paddy to the prejudice of the plaintiffs;
(c) to direct the defendant to pay damages for the loss caused to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-."
3. There is only one defendant in the suit against whom the reliefs are sought.
4. The defendant filed I.A. No. 1232 of 1989 praying that respondents 2 to 4 herein be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. The same was objected by the petitioner herein. Repelling the objection, the Court below allowed the application. This revision is filed challenging the said Order.
5. The main reason that is stated in the petition is that the defendant has filed another suit in respect of the same subject-matter against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 as O.S. No. 420 of 1987 and, to enable him to have a joint trial, respondents 2 to 4 are to be impleaded. According to him, respondents 2 to 4 in this Revision are necessary parties for arriving at proper decision. The Court below accepted the said contention of the first respondent herein.
6. Impleading of a party to the suit is provided under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows :-
"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, as added."
The Apex Court has decided the circumtances under which an additional party may be impleaded, in 1992 (1) CCC 594, 1992 (2) JT 136, 1992 (1) RCR 644, 1992 (1) Scale 530, 1992 (2) SCC 524, 1992 (2) SCR 1, 1992 (2) UJ 181, 1992 AIR(SCW) 846 (Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay). That is a case where the plaintiff sought an injunction against the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff therein was in possession of a service station erected on a land held by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as a lessee. The service station consisted of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking vehicles. Possession of the plaintiff was as Licencee of the Hindustan Petroleum Company under a dealership agreement. The plaintiff therein put up two chattels on the terrace. Notice of demolition was issued by the Municipality on the ground that it is an unauthorised construction. The plaintiff challenged the suit, questioning the validity of the notice of demolition. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, who was the lessee of the premises and who (was?) also interested in the demolition, sought impleadment in the case, on the ground that the Petroleum Corporation, being a lessee of the property, is interested in the suit. The Court below allowed the application which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Apex Court. While considering the said question, their Lordships held that a person who may be impleaded as a party to the suit should have direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, whether it be the questions relating to movable or immovable property. Their Lordships construed the words:
"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."
The Court is empowere
