Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
Satnam Singh alias Sattu - Petitioner
Versus
Karam Singh - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 703 of 1997.
Decided On : 2 February, 1998
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) - STRIKING OUT PARTIES - IMPROPERLY JOINED - NECESSARY PARTY - DELETION OF NAME - EFFECT:
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for possession of land, the appellant was one of the respondents and had filed a joint written statement with other defendants. The plaintiff, respondent No. 1, made a statement leading to the deletion of the appellant's name from the array of defendants. The District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession against the remaining defendants, excluding the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was a necessary party to the suit and that his name could not be deleted without good reason. The court found that the appellant had an interest in the property in question and that his presence was necessary for determining the question in controversy.
Issues: Whether the appellant was improperly joined as a defendant in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was a necessary party to the suit and that his name could not be deleted without good reason. The court found that the appellant had an interest in the property in question and that his presence was necessary for determining the question in controversy.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. The parties were directed to appear before the District Judge for further proceedings.
ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J. - Karam Singh, respondent had filed a suit for possession of area measuring 1 Marlas 3 Sarsahis, situated in village Ajnoha, Tehsil Garhshankar. The claim of respondent No. 1 was that he is exclusive owner of the property in question. The appellant and other respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have, illegally and forcibly, taken possession of the site without any right, title or interest. The said suit had been contested by the appellant and by Harbhajan Singh and Amarjit Singh. In their written statement, they denied the locus-standi of respondent No. 1 to file the suit. Their contention was that the site in dispute does not form part of Khasra No. 477 and that respondent no. 1 is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct. In the alternative, it was pointed out that even if it is proved that it forms part of the Khasra No. 477, even then, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to take possession of the same, because the property in question is in possession of Karam Singh through Satnam Singh, appellant.
2. The learned Civil Judge, Garhshankar framed the issues and after recording of the evidence held that the respondents have been recorded to be joint owners of Khasra No. 477. The property in question forms part of Khasra No. 477 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 at best could get a decree for joint possession. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree of the learned trial court, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal. It came up for hearing before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It appears that a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 1 and Harbhajan Singh and Amarjit Singh. The appellant was not agreeable to the settlement. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 had made a statement by virtue of which, the appellant was deleted from array of the defendants. After taking into consideration, the compromise with respondents, the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession. Needless to say that the appellant had protested about his name being deleted from the array of defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that it was the appellant which was in possession of the property in question and, therefore, the suit for possession could not be decreed by deleting his name from the array of the defendants.
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under :-
"10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff :-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10(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 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."
A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the court can strike out or add parties at any stage of the proceedings. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the court to do so. The power to strike off the name of any party improperly joined could be exercised even at the time of appeal. Such an order can be passed suo moto or on the application of the party. The question for determination is whether the party was improperly joined as a plaintiff or defendant. If the court concludes that the said party has been improperly joined, the name of the party can be struck out. The party interested in a litigation which has no relation with the relief or with the claim, is not a proper party in a litigation and the name of such a party can be struck out under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. What is the position here ? The learned District Judge has simply mentioned that since the na
AI
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
