Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.
Anil Jain - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal & Others – Respondent
Misc. Petition No.3863 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2025
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 14¼3½ & nLrkost vfÒys[k ij ysus d¢ fy, vkosnu & [kkfjt fd;k x;k & okn çLrqr djrs le; nLrkost miyC/k ugha g¨us d¢ dkj.k foyac & nLrkost vko';d gksa rks vkosnu eatwj fd;k tk ldrk gS & bl çØe ij nLrkost¨a dh çkekf.kdrk ugÈ ns[kh tk ldrh & çR;FkhZ@çfroknh d¨ lk{kh dk vfrfjä çfrijh{k.k djus d¢ fy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; d¢ le{k vkosnu çLrqr djus dk vfèkdkj g¨xk & mls [kaMu esa lk{; çLrqr djus dk iw.kZ volj feysxk & çR;FkÊ ds lkFk d¨Ã {kfr ;k Ĩj vU;k; ugÈ g¨xk & vkosnu eatwjA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 7864 lu~ 2014 fu.kÊr fnukad 8-9-2015] flfoy vihy Øekad 5066 lu~ 2005 fu.kÊr fnukad 16-8-2005 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] 1966 ¼1½ v‚y Ãvkj 524 ¼,p,y½ rFkk ,vkbvkj 1998 ,llh 1827 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15 ls 17½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 1 fu- 10] èkkjk 151 rFkk vk- 13 fu- 10 & vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 d¢ vèkhu ftld¨ i{kdkj cukuk pkgk x;k & U;k;ky; d¨ okn esa varoZfyr leLr ç'u¨a dk çÒkoh ,oa iw.kZ U;k;fu.kZ;u dj ldus d¢ fy, vko';d ugÈ & og u r¨ vko';d i{kdkj gS] u leqfpr i{kdkj gh & vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 d¢ vèkhu vkosnu [kkfjt djus esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; u d¨Ã xyrh ugÈ dh & vkns'k 13 fu;e 10 d¢ vèkhu vkosnu fu"Qy gks tkus d¢ dkj.k [kkfjtA ¼2010½ 7 ,llhlh 417 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 14(3) -- application for taking document on record -- rejected -- delay due to non-availability of documents at time of filing suit -- when documents are necessary, application may be allowed -- genuineness of documents cannot be gone into at this stage -- respondent/defendant will have opportunity to file application before trial Court for further cross-examination of witness -- he will have every opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal -- no prejudice or grave injustice would be caused to respondent -- application allowed. W. P. No. 7864 of 2014 decided on 8.9.2015, Civil Appeal No. 5066 of 2015 decided on 16.8.2005 (SC), 1966 (1) All ER 524 (HL) and AIR 1998 SC 1827 referred to. [Paras 15 to 17]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10, 151 and O. 13 R. 10 -- party sought to be impleaded under order 1 rule 10 -- not necessary to enable Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all questions involved in suit -- he is neither necessary party nor proper party -- trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting application under order 1 rule 10 -- application under order 13 rule 10 dismissed as infructuous. (2010) 7 SCC 417 followed. [Para 20]
The legal document discusses procedural aspects related to civil litigation, particularly focusing on the admissibility of documents and the addition of parties to a suit.
Key Points:
Admission of Documents:
The court emphasizes that procedural rules should facilitate justice by allowing the admission of necessary documents even if they were not filed initially, provided that the documents are genuine and relevant. An application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC can be allowed in genuine cases, and the court's primary concern is to avoid delay and ensure that relevant evidence is considered. The genuineness of documents cannot be scrutinized at this stage, and the respondent will have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in rebuttal (!) (!) .
Addition of Parties:
The discretion to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is exercised to ensure effective and complete adjudication of all questions involved in the suit. A person may be added if they are necessary or proper parties, meaning their presence is essential for a just decision or would aid the court in settling all disputes comprehensively. The court's power to add or strike out parties is broad and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, either suo moto or upon application, based on reasoned and fair judgment (!) (!) .
Legal Principles on Procedural Law:
Procedural laws are to serve justice and are not to be construed as mandatory rigid rules. The right of a party is to prosecute or defend the case in the manner prescribed by law, but procedural rules should aid in achieving substantive justice. The court has the discretion to permit belated documents if they are relevant and necessary, and to add or remove parties to prevent multiplicity and to ensure effective adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
Application of Discretion:
The court’s discretion in adding parties or admitting documents must be guided by reason, fairness, and the principles of justice. It should not be exercised arbitrarily. The courts are empowered to exercise this discretion to ensure that all necessary parties are included, and that the case can be fully and effectively decided without prejudice to any party (!) (!) .
Case Management and Court’s Findings:
The trial court’s order rejecting the application to add a party was based on an assessment that the individual was not necessary or proper for the effective adjudication of the case. The court’s decision was grounded in factual findings and correct legal principles, and such orders are subject to judicial review for correctness (!) (!) .
In summary, procedural rules are designed to promote justice by permitting the admission of necessary evidence and the addition of parties when required for a comprehensive and effective resolution of disputes. The courts have broad discretion, which must be exercised judiciously, respecting the principles of fairness and substantive justice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreement to sell property (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. applications filed by petitioners (Para 3) |
| 3. trial court's rejection (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments by petitioners (Para 6) |
| 5. addition of necessary party (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. admission of documents (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. discretion in adding parties (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by XI District Judge, Gwalior in Case No.06 of 2014 (RCSA); whereby, application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC ; application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC and application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs have been rejected.
2. Short facts of the case are that the present petitioners had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as the sale deed dated 10.04.2013 to be declared null and void. It has been averred in the plaint that respondent No.1/Rajendra Kumar Agrawal had executed an agreement to sell the property/shop to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 had filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It has been averred therein that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the property for consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and on the date of agreement i.e. 06.01.2012, defendant No.1 had received Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the remaining amount of Rs.23,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed; a condition to that effect was also recorded in the said agreement that time limit for execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 would be three months after termination of the dispute. After the agreement, defendant No.1 had received Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.03.2012 in cash and had assured that soon, he would get the case pending before the Court filed by the daughters of Chirongilal resolved. The plaintiff through his Advocate had sent a legal notice dated 22.03.2012 to defendant No.1 through registered post wherein it was mentioned that Rs.2,50,000/- had been received by defendant No.1 towards agreement and in relation to the agreed property, the daughters of Chirongilal had filed a First Appeal No.123 of 2011 before this Court in which order dated 07.03.2012 of maintain status quo of the property in question by the parties has been passed, due to which, there was an obstacle in execution of sale deed, therefore, after getting the said obstacle removed, the remaining sale amount should be received from the plaintiff and the sale deed would be executed. The respondent No.1 had neither sent any reply to the said legal notice nor any information regarding the status of the case filed by the daughters of Chirongilal by 30.11.2012 was given. Thereafter, the respondent No.l had sold the property to respondent No.2/Gopal Sangi after the agreement, therefore, he had also been made as a party in the proceedings. The suit had been filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2013. During the pendency of the suit, as respondent No.2/Gopal Sangi died on 01.05.2021 and there is no any legal heirs, therefore, the petitioners had filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC . The said application, which has not been objected by the respondent No.1 nor LRs of respondent no.2/Gopal Sanghi, was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2022.
3. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking the certified copy of the documents on record which had been obtained during pendency of the suit. The respondent No.2 had not filed any reply to the said application.
4. The petitioner had also filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC for calling of record of a disposed of case from the Court. The respondent No.2 had also not replied to the said application and respondent No.1 had filed reply and had denied all the averments made in the application. The petitioner came to know from the Municipal Corporation Gwalior that
Procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing for the admission of necessary documents and clarifying criteria for adding parties.
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.
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC casts duty upon court to ensure impleadment and deletion of party, which may or may not be necessary for adjudication of case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
The court affirmed that a suit for declaration does not necessitate all co-owners as parties if their interests don't impede the plaintiff's claims.
The court emphasized the necessity of including all parties with direct interest in a suit for comprehensive adjudication, rejecting the exclusion based solely on prior dismissals.
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
Amendments to pleadings that change the nature of a suit are impermissible, and courts must adhere to previous orders regarding necessary party impleadment.
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
