Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Julian Alexander – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
CR NO.3145 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-05-2024
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
In this revision petition, plaintiff no.2 assails the correctness of the trial Court's order passed on 15.05.2023, which dismissed his application for impleading predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.10.
2. The petitioner along with another filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for declaration that the suit property vests with the persons of Christian faith and Leapers and to restrain defendant no.10 from further alienating the property.
3. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.10. In substance, the plaintiff claims that the vendors of plaintiff no.10 should be impleaded as a party. The court has dismissed the same on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to how they are necessary party.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the vendors of defendant no.10 are necessary party because subsequently a complication may arise.
5. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.
6. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be allowed only if the plaintiff establishes before the court that the necessary party has not been impleaded. In this case, the ownership, if any, vests with defendant no.10, who is already a party to the suit. His vendors have already transferred their interest in favour of defendant no.10.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to interfere is made out.
8. Dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
AI
An application to implead parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC requires proof of necessity, which was not established in this case.
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
The court held that the impleadment of parties is permissible only if they are necessary or proper for effective adjudication, and claims for probate must adhere to limitation periods.
Presence of parties in litigation requires a demonstrated direct interest in the subject matter as per Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
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
