While the plaintiff is generally dominus litis, the court can exercise discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead a necessary party to ensure effective and complete adjudication of the dispute and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, particularly when a party has a direct interest in the subject matter.

ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 15th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior, in RCS No. 695-A of 2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected.

2. A few facts giving rise to the present petition, as narrated therein, are that the original plaintiff, Smt. Saroj, wife of Shri Jitendra Singh, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession of a house located at Tanki Road, Shivaji Nagar, Aam Kho Brigade, Lashkar, Gwalior, having a built-up area of 4,900 square feet. It was pleaded that the property was initially acquired and constructed by Kunwar Pal Singh, who obtained all necessary approvals and executed a registered Will in her favour on 20th January, 2003. After Kunwar Pal Singh’s death on 25th January, 2013, the plaintiff became the sole owner and occupant of the house. All relevant documents, including construction approvals, tax receipts, and ownership records dating back to 1949, were produced by the plaintiff to establish her rightful ownership. Despite this, the defendants, including municipal officers, repeatedly challenged the plaintiff’s ownership, claiming that the property belongs to the Municipal Corporation. It was pleaded in the plaint averments that they allegedly threatened to demolish the house and include it in municipal land. The plaintiff sent a registered notice on 1st July, 2021, warning the defendants not to interfere with her property, but the defendants continued their harassment. Due to these illegal attempts to claim and demolish the property, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, and protection against unauthorized interference.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC submitting that Survey No. 1817, measuring 12 bighas and 4 biswa in Mouza Village Lashkar City, Gwalior, belonged to his late father, Sardar Devrao Jadhav, whose name is recorded in the Government revenue records as owner and occupant for the years 2007–2009. While he and his brother were abroad, certain individuals allegedly conspired with government or municipal officials to remove his father’s name from the land records and illegally occupy the land. The petitioner came to know that Mrs. Saroj Bai had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a part of this land. Since he is the rightful owner and the plaintiff has no interest in the disputed land, he contended that he is a necessary party to the suit as per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and that a proper and effective decree cannot be passed in his absence. Therefore, he sought a direction that the plaintiffs be directed to include him as a party to protect his legal rights in the disputed land. The plaintiff filed a reply to this application. The trial court, vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2024, rejected the application. Hence, this petition.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the original plaintiff purchased the property by way of a sale deed, in which it is mentioned that out of Survey No. 1817, land measuring 47 × 47 sq. ft. was purchased. The sale deed of the year 1947 is a forged document, and the document clearly mentions that it concerns land of Survey No. 1817. However, the trial court did not consider this aspect. It is further contended that the plaint averments show that the petitioner was not required to mention the fact regarding Survey No. 1817, yet the learned trial court rejected the application without considering the entire aspect of the matter. The petitioner is claiming relief regarding Survey No. 1817, which is land belonging to him; therefore, he is a necessary and proper party. Once it is mentioned that land bearing Survey No. 1817 is part of the disputed land, and such a sale deed was never executed by the pe