Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Jagjit Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Ajit Lal and another - Respondents.
CR No. 2225 of 2005
Decided On: 14.8.2013
Advocate Appeared
Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
The plaintiff is the master of the suit, and no person can be added as a party against their wishes unless the court concludes that the presence of the applicant is necessary for the proper disposal of the case.
Headnote:
Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of Co-owner - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 1 Rule 10(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) - The court discussed the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles to be followed while adjudicating the issue of impleadment of a party to the proceedings. It emphasized that a necessary party is one without whom an effective decree cannot be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence would enable the court to completely adjudicate upon all matters and issues. The court also highlighted that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and no person can be added as a party against their wishes unless the court concludes that the presence of the applicant is necessary for the proper disposal of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed an appeal against an ejectment order, and during the appeal, a co-owner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as a party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the co-owner's presence was not necessary or proper for the determination of the real matter in dispute and that the proceedings were not related to the question of title in the demised premises. Therefore, the appellate authority's dismissal of the application was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the co-owner should be impleaded as a party during the appeal against the ejectment order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the co-owner's presence was not necessary or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal, and that the dispute about title between the parties should be settled in a separate suit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, but the appellate authority was directed to conclude the appeal expeditiously.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the appellate authority, Sangrur whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) was dismissed.
2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision may be noticed. Charanjit Singh son of Jang Singh filed a rent petition against tenant Ajit Lal. The said petition was contested by filing a reply by the tenant. The Rent Controller vide order dated 23.3.2004 accepted the petition on the ground of nonpayment. The tenant filed an appeal against the ejectment order dated 23.3.2004 before the appellate authority, Sangrur. During the pendency of the said appeal, applicant Jagjit Singh son of Jang Singh (brother of Charanjit Singh) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as a party. The appellate authority vide order dated 15.12.2004 dismissed the said application holding that the applicant was not a necessary party. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant petitioner submitted that the applicant was a cosharer with his brother Charanjit Singh and, therefore, he was proper and necessary party and the appellate authority had erred in declining the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.
4. Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that in case the applicant had any right, he could file a separate suit. However, denying the applicant petitioner being a cosharer, it was submitted that it was collusion between the applicant and the tenant and the applicant was neither a proper nor necessary party. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of the appellate authority:
“Before the learned Rent Controller, the Rent Application tiled 'Charanjit Singh v. Ajit Lal' had been filed on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Charanjit Singh claimed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent, Ajit Lal. Now vide application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC dt. 12.10.2004, Jagjit Singh has contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between Charanjit Singh and Ajit Lal, but in fact the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the applicant, Jagjit Singh and appellant Ajit Lal. Further he has since received from the tenant, Ajit Lal rent of the demised premises upto 29.9.2001 and has also received from the appellant/ tenant, Ajit Lal possession of the demised premises. The contentions of the applicant Jagjit Singh show a collusion between appellant, Ajit Lal and the applicant Jagjit Singh. If on 29.9.2001 the applicant Jagjit Singh took vacant possession of the demised premises from the tenant Ajit Lal, appellant what prompted the appellant Ajit Lal to file this Rent Appeal. In these rent proceedings/appeal, the only question to be seen is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant Ajit Lal and respondent Charanjit Singh does or does not exist?”
5. Support was also drawn from the judgments in Smt. Krishna and another v. Smt. Shanti Devi and another, 1991(2) RRR 241, Subhash Chander and others v. Baij Nath Aggarwal and others, 1993(2) PLR 460, Anil Kumar v. Chaudhary Ram, 1994(1) RCR 413, Lachhman Dass v. Sham Lal, 1996(2) RCR 231, Inder Lal v. Babu Lal 1998(1) RCR 590 and Kiran Kumar Bansal v. Kusum Bansal, 2001(2) RCR 263.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code reads thus:
“Order 1 Rule 10(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 i
