Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
Puttan And Others - Petitioners
Versus
Abhishek Shukla And Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 202 Of 2021
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Impleadment - Civil Suit - Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. - [Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.] - The court allowed the impleadment application of respondents no. 1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. as they had purchased the disputed land and were found to be necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition to set aside orders passed by the trial court and the district court allowing the impleadment of respondents no. 1 and 2 in a civil suit for permanent injunction. The respondents had purchased the disputed land and applied for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents no. 1 and 2 were necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case as they had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents no. 1 and 2 should be impleaded in the civil suit as necessary parties due to their purchase of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles laid down in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others to determine the necessity of impleading the respondents no. 1 and 2.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the orders allowing the impleadment of respondents no. 1 and 2 in the civil suit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharm Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 10.11.2020, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, in Civil Suit No. 934 of 2001 (Jabbaru Nisha vs. Puttan and others) and order dated 03.12.2020, passed by District Judge, Fatehpur, in Misc. Case No. 80 of 2020 (Puttan and others vs. Abhishek Shukla and others).
3. Brief facts of the case is that one Jabbaru Nisha had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was registered as Original Suit No. 934 of 2001. The petitioners who were defendants in the suit had put in appearance before the court below and filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations and they have also filed their counter claim for restraining the plaintiff not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the defendants over the land in dispute.
4. During the pendecy of the aforesaid suit, Jabbaru Nisha died and no substitution was filed by any of the legal heirs of Jabbaru Nisha and the suit was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2012 and counter claim filed by defendants/petitioners was pending. During the pendency of counter-claim/cross-objection of the defendants/petitioners, the respondents no. 1 and 2 had moved an application on 06.10.2020 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. which is paper no. 556-Ga(2) for their impleadment.
5. It is pleaded in the impleadment application that Jabbaru Nisha, plaintiff had sold Arazi No. 2501 area 0.2429 situated at Kasba Fatehpur Dakshani, District Fatehpur to one Mohd. Riaz through registered sale deed on 29.12.2006. Respondents no. 1 and 2 had purchased the aforesaid land from Mohd. Riaz through registered sale deed on 13.11.2019 and they became owner and in possession over the disputed land. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of mutation proceedings, the defendants/petitioners had filed objection before Niab Tehsildar only then, they knew about the pendency of Original Suit No. 934 of 2001. It is pleaded that since the land in dispute was purchased by the applicants and they are in possession over the same, as such, they are necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.
6. The defendants/petitioners also filed objection to the impleadement application on 17.10.2020. It is stated in the objection by the defendants/petitioners that the impleadment application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the case is pending for such a long time and only to delay the proceedings, the present impleadment application has been filed by the applicants. It is further pleaded that the applicants are not the bona-fide purchaser of the land.
7. The learned trial court after considering the objections of the petitioners had allowed the application for impleadement filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 vide order dated 10.11.2020. The learned trial court has recorded the finding that since the disputed land was purchased by applicants (respondents no. 1 and 2) through registered sale deed dated 13.11.2019 and as such, they are necessary parties and the impleadment application on their behalf is liable to be allowed for proper adjudication of the case.
8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.11.2020, the petitioners had filed civil revision which was also dismissed by the learned revisional court vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2020. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the orders dated 10.11.2020 and 03.12.2020.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the courts below had erred in passing the impugned orders as the respondents no. 1 and 2 are not necessary parties to be impleaded. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit filed by Jabbaru Nisha was dismissed in default on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles regarding impleadment of parties as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case....
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
Impleadment as part defendant in suit – Legal claim of petitioner cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay or advance stage of proceeding of suit.
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.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
The right to intervene in ongoing execution proceedings is denied if the petitioner has no established interest in the property and the rights of prior parties have been conclusively determined.
The court emphasized the importance of the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure when considering applications for impleadment.
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....
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
