2019 Supreme(MP) 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Tilak Sahakari Grah Nirman Sanstha Mydt. v. Aqeel Ahmed and others
M. P. No. 2496 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against Order dated 6.5.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 176-A/2003; Decided on 16.9.2019

Headnote:

¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 1 fuŒ 10 & mica/k ds v/khu 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & foØ; dh lfoank ij vk/kkfjr i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, vkosnu & lafonk dh fof/kekU;rk ns[kk tkuk visf{kr ugha & ÁFker% vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
ÁR;FkhZx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk Áfrokn fd;k x;k fd dfFkr foØ;&foys[k@lafonk bl okn ds Áklaafxd HkkX; ij fuHkZj Fkk vkSj tSlk fd dksbZ ÁfrQy Hkh Ánku ugha fd;k x;k] blfy, ;kph dks vf/kdkj ÁnÙk ugha gksrsA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fQj Hkh] esjh jk; esa] tc i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tkuk Fkk rc lafonk dh fof/kekU;rk ns[kk tkuk visf{kr ugha FkkA
tc U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 ds v/khu vkosnu dk fofu'p;u fd;k tk jgk gks rc foØ; foys[k dh oSèkrk dk ijh{k.k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,] ftlds vk/kkj ij O;fDr laifÙk ij vius vf/kdkj] gd~ ,oa fgr dk nkok djrs gq, vkius vki dks vko';d i{kdkj gksuk dg jgk gSA , vkb vkj 1973 bykŒ 478 voyafcrA
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 1 fuŒ 10 rFkk vkŒ 23 fuŒ 3 & gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk rFkk O;kns'k ds fy, okn & vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 ds v/khu foØ; dh lafonk ij vk/kkfjr vkosnu & i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk blfy, pkgk x;k D;ksafd oknhx.k ,oa Áfroknhx.k us ijLij nqjfHklaf/k dj yh gS le>kSrk fMØh pkgus ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS & ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa & esa oknhx.k ds gd ds fo"k; esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ fn;k tkuk visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 11 & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & lg&oknh ds :i esa i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds iwoZrj nks vkosnu [kkfjt fd, x, & Øsrk }kjk ifjofrZr okn gsrqd ds vk/kkj ij i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, iqu% vkosnu & iwoZ U;k; ls oftZr ugha & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar vkdf"kZr ugha gksrkA
ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 6 ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds vuqlkj ;kph&laLFkk }kjk i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, ÁLrqr vkosnu iwoZ U;k; ls vkgr gS D;ksafd mlh Á;kstu ds fy, iwoZrj vkosnu igys gh [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% ;kph ds fo)ku dkmUlsy }kjk ;g Áfrfojks/k ugha fd;k x;k fd iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar okn yafcr jgrs ;k fHkUu ÁØeksa ij ykxw ugha gksxk] ysfdu ;g Áfrokn fd;k x;k fd ifjofrZr okn gsrqd esa] iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar ykxw ugha gksxk vkSj muds fuosnu vuqlkj] tc oknhx.k ,oa Áfroknhx.k us le>kSrk dj fy;k gS rFkk le>kSrk fMØh pkgh gS] rc bls lg&oknh ds :i esa vius fgr ds laj{k.k ;k okn dks vkxs lapkfyr djus ds fy, mls i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁkFkZuk djus dk u;s fljs ls okn gsrqd ÁkIr gks x;k gSA ;kph ds fo)ku dkmUlsy }kjk fd, x, Áfrfojks/k ls lger gksrs gq,] eSa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk viuk, x, n`f"Vdks.k ls larq"V ugha gwa fd ;kph }kjk i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, ÁLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu iwoZ U;k; ls vkgr gSA 2009 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 472 voyafcrA ¼1991½ 3 ,l lh lh 338 rFkk , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 787 foosfprA ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 190 rFkk ¼2018½ 2 ,l lh lh 539A
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 22 fuŒ 10 rFkk vkŒ 1 fuŒ 10 & okn laj{kd dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & Øsrk Okndkyhu ds nkSjku mls i{kdkj cuk, tkus ds fy, vkosnu & i{kdkj tksM+uk ;g U;k;ky; dk foosdkf/kdkj gS & U;k;ky; mi;ZqDr fl)kar dk vuqlj.k djus ds fy, vkc) ugha gS & U;k;ky; okn ds fdlh Hkh ÁØe ij i{kdkj cuk, tkus dk funs'k ns ldrk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% bl rF; ds ckotwn Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd oknh ds lkFk okn laj{kd gS] U;k;ky; mi;qZDr fl)kar dk vuqlj.k djus ds fy, vkc) ugha gSA cfYd okn ds fdlh Hkh çØe ij i{kdkj tksM+us dk funs'k nsrs gq, vius foosdkf/kdkj dk Á;ksx dj ldrk gS] ;fn U;k;ky; ;g ikrk gS fd okn esa dfFkr i{kdkj dks i{kdkj cuk, fcuk] U;k;ky; ml ij ÁHkkoh:i ls vkSj iw.kZ:is.k U;k;fu.kZ;d vkSj okn esa varoZfyr leLr Á'uksa dk lek/kku djus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gksxkA dk;Zokfg;ksa ds ckgqY; dk ifjgkj Hkh lafgrk ds mi;qZDr mica/k dk ,d mn~ns'; gSA
bl ekeys esa] ;fn ;kph }kjk ÁLrqr fd, x, nLrkostksa vkSj vkosnu esa fd, x, ÁkdFkuksa dk ijh{k.k djrs gSa] rc ;g lansg ls ijs gS fd ;g okn laifRr ij dqN lkn`'; gd j[krk gSA ;kph vkSj oknhx.k ds e/; foØ; dk djkj Fkk vkSj rRi'pkr~] okn laifÙk ds fo"k; esa oknhx.k us ;kph ds i{k esa foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr fd, Fks vkSj ;fn oknhx.k rFkk Áfroknhx.k ds e/; le>kSrk gks tkrk gS] ;kph ds vf/kdkj Áfrdwy ls ÁHkkfor gksaxsA
;g Li"V gS fd ;kph dk lkjoku fgr Fkk u fd vkSipkfjd vkSj rn~uqlkj mldk vkosnu eatwj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj mls i{kdkj ds :i es tksM+uk vuqKkr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼2005½ 11 ,l lh lh 403] ¼2010½ 7 ,l lh lh 417] ¼1999½ 2 ,l lh lh 577] ¼2013½ 5 ,l lh lh 397 vuqlfjrA 1980 ts ,y ts 738] rFkk 1959 ,e ih ,y ts 1162 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 853] ¼1995½ lIyhŒ 2 ,l lh lh 388] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 190] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 551] ¼1996½ 5 ,l lh lh 539] , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 215 rFkk 2014 ¼2½ eŒÁŒ ohDyh uksV~l 64 fufnZ"VA
¼5½ fof/kd lw= & okn laj{kd dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & U;k;ky; mi;qZDr fl)kar dk vuqlj.k djus ds fy, vkc) ugha & ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vdks.k ls & U;k;ky; dk ;g foosdkf/kdkj gS fd okn esa eè;{ksidrkZ dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vuqer djsA

(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 -- scope of powers under -- application for impleadment based on contract to sell -- validity of contract to sell -- validity of contract not required to be seen -- firstly application must be considered.

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the said sale-deed/contract was contingent depending upon the fate of the present suit and as such no consideration passed on, therefore, no right conferred to the petitioner.

Held: However, in my opinion, the validity of the contract was not required to be seen when the application for impleadment had to be considered.

While deciding the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, the Court below should not have examined the validity of the sale-deeds on the basis of which the person asking him to be a necessary party, claiming his right, title and interest over the property. AIR 1972 All. 478 relied on.

(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 and O. 23 R. 3 -- civil suit for declaration of title and injunction -- application under order 1 rule based on contract to sell -- impleadment sought as plaintiffs and defendants colluded with each other and moved application asking compromise decree -- in such circumastances -- no finding required to be given in respect of title of plaintiffs. [Paras 11 & 12]

(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 11 -- principle of res judicata -- applicability of -- earlier two applications for impleadment as co-plaintiff rejected -- again application by purchaser for impleadment based on changed cause of action -- not barred by res judicata -- principle of res judicata not attracted.

As per the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, the application submitted by the petitioner-society for impleadment is hit by res judicata because the earlier application for the same purpose had already been rejected.

Held: it is not a contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle of res judicata would not be applicable in a pending suit or at different stages, but it has been contended that in the changed cause of action, principle of res judicata will not be applicable and as per his submission, when the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a compromise and sought compromise decree, then the petitioner got a fresh cause of action for making request before the Court for its impleadment just to protect its interest or to prosecute the suit further as a co-plaintiff. Agreeing with the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not satisfied with the view taken by the Court below that the application submitted by the petitioner for impleadment as a coplaintiff, is hit by res judicata. 2009 (3) MPLJ 472 relied on. (1991) 3 SCC 338 and AIR 1993 SC 787 discussed (2005) 7 SCC 190, (2018) 2 SCC 539 referred to.

(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 R. 10 and O. 1 R. 10 -- principle of dominus lites -- applicability of -- application by purchaser for impleadment during pendente lite -- it is discretion of Court to join party -- Court is not bound to follow said principle -- Court can direct for impleading parties at any stage of suit.

Held: It is clear that despite the fact that the "dominus litis" lies with the plaintiff, the Court is not bound to follow the said principle, but can exercise its discretion at any stage of the suit directing addition of parties, if the Court finds that without impleading the said party in the suit, the Court would not be in a position to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.

In this case, if the documents filed by the petitioner and averments made in the application are examined, then it is beyond doubt that it has some semblance of title over the suit property. There was agreement of sale between the petitioner and plaintiffs and thereafter, the sale-deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property and if the matter is compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants, the right of the petitioner would be adversely affected.

It is clear that the interest of the petitioner was substantial and not just peripheral and accordingly its application ought to have been allowed and it be permitted to be added as party. (2005) 11 SCC 403, (2010) 7 SCC 417, (1999) 2 SCC 577, (2013) 5 SCC 397 followed. 1980 JLJ 738 and 1959 MPLJ 1162 relied on, AIR 1994 SC 853, (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 388 (2005) 7 SCC 190, AIR 1979 SC 551, (1996) 5 SCC 539, AIR 2007 SC 215 & 2014 (2) MPWN 64 referred to.

(5) Legal Maxims -- doctrine of dominus litis -- applicability of -- Court is not bound to follow said principle -- looking to facts and circumstances of case -- it is discretion of Court to permit intervener to impleaded in suit. [Para 13, 15 & 33]