Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Om Prakash Das – Revisionist
Versus
Vichar Das And 2 Others - Opposite Party
Civil Revision No. 52 of 2021
Decided On : 08-08-2022
For the Revisionist : Adya Prasad Tewari.
For the Opposite Party : Anil Pratap Singh, Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, Prabhakar Vardhan.
The distinction between necessary and proper parties and the importance of bringing all relevant parties to the dispute on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:
Amendment Application - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 6 Rule 17 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles of adding or striking out parties from the proceedings. It highlighted the distinction between necessary and proper parties and emphasized the importance of bringing all relevant parties to the dispute on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as the Mahant of Sant Kabir Math and sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff later filed an amendment application to strike out the name of defendant no. 3 from the array of parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that defendant no. 3, claiming right over the land and having her name recorded in the revenue records, was a necessary party in the dispute. It held that deleting her name would lead to multiplicity of litigation and rejected the amendment application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the plaintiff's amendment application to strike out the name of defendant no. 3 from the array of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between necessary and proper parties, highlighting the importance of bringing all relevant parties to the dispute on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It also noted that the plaintiff, as the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is claimed unless that person is a necessary party for the suit to proceed or the relief to be granted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the order rejecting the amendment application.
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. This revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’) arises out of order dated 08.01.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast Track Court, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 400 of 2017, whereby the amendment application moved by the revisionist under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. being Paper No. 25/K2 for striking out the name of defendant no. 3 from array of parties was rejected.
2. Facts in nutshell, are that plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit for declaration declaring him the Mahant of one Sant Kabir Math. Relief of permanent injunction was also claimed against defendants from not interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property of the Math and also not to evict the plaintiff. An amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by plaintiff in the year 2020 after the suit was being contested by defendant no. 3 for striking off her name from the plaint. The application was contested by defendant no. 3 by filing her objection being Paper No. 28Ga and affidavit 29Ga on the ground that the property in dispute was entered into the name of her father Ram Nagina in whose favour one Jamuna Das had executed the Will. Ram Nagina had executed a Will in favour of defendant no. 3 on 05.01.2002, and after the death of Ram Nagina, name of defendant no. 3 was entered in the revenue records vide order dated 20.03.2007. Against the said order, a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur who dismissed the revision on 08.04.2013, against which writ petition has been filed before this Court which is pending. According to defendant no. 3, her name is still recorded in the revenue records and the order dated 20.03.2007 is still standing in the revenue records. The court below after the exchange of pleadings vide order dated 08.01.2022 rejected the application of the plaintiff-revisionist. Hence, the present revision.
3. Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that plaintiff is the dominus litis, and is master of the suit. According to him, defendant no. 3 is neither a necessary or a proper party and thus plaintiff sought for amendment for deleting the name of defendant no. 3. He then submitted that court below did not consider the true import of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and passed the order on non existent and unfounded grounds.
4. He then contended that as no relief was sought against defendant no. 3, thus, the court below was not justified in refusing the amendment sought. Reliance has been placed upon decisions of Apex Court in case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors, [ 2005 (6) SCC 733], and decision rendered in Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others, [2020 (13) SCC 773].
5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material on record.
6. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which is extracted here as under :-
“Order 1 Rule 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 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, be added.”
7. From perusal of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1, it is clear that the court may at any stage of proceeding add parties or delete a party either on the application of a party or suo moto or by a third party who desires to be added as a party.
8. In exercise of the power to implead a person suo moto, the court has to see that a
