ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 4.3.2022 passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashoknagar in Case No. RCSA No.351/2021, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC for impleading them as defendants has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit against the respondents No.2 to 6 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Survey No.256/2 area 1 hectare. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC on the ground that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land and are necessary party. By the impugned order, their application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.

3. On 28.11.2022, a specific statement was made by the counsel for the petitioners that although the petitioners in their application have claimed that they are in possession, but now they do not want to press the said submission made in the application and they want to get themselves impleaded just in order to support the State Government and other defendants. However, on 28.11.2022, the counsel for the petitioners sought time to make further submission. Today, once again Shri R.P. Kaurav made a submission that the petitioners hereby forgo all their rights which they have claimed in their application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC, but since they want to support the State Government in order to ensure that the case for protection of suit property is properly contested, therefore, they are necessary parties. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kranti Arora vs Digjam Ltd. decided on 8.7.2022 in Case No. RFA(OS) No. 7/2011.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. The petitioners had filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC for their impleadment on the ground that they are in possession of the property in dispute and have personal interest. However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners made a statement twice, i.e., on 28.11.2022 and today in unequivocal words that “the petitioners hereby forgo all their rights/claims in the property in dispute” and now, they simply want to join the suit with an intention to ensure that the State Government is properly represented and properly contest the suit for the protection of the State property. It is the case of the petitioners that they are proper parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi (supra) had held as under:-

13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person.

6. Since the petitioners have given up all their claims, therefore, now it cannot be said that no effective decree can be passed in absence of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the original case of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, some right was claimed against the State. If the said stand taken by petitioners is taken on its face value, then it is clear that by making an application under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC, they wanted to claim their rights against co-defendant, i.e., State, which otherwise was also not permissible. Furthermore, the petitioners cannot be said to be proper party becau