IMPORTANT POINT
Important aspect which should be looked into by Civil Courts while deciding applications under O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Brijesh Yadav “Vijay”, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, Shri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur by which the petitioners’ application for impleadment in Regular Suit No.192/97 has been rejected.

3. Facts in brief of the present case are that opposite party no.4/Daya Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the property mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint, which reads as under :-

[Matter In Other Language]

The prayer made by the petitioners reads as under :-

[Matter In Other Language]

4. On 21.08.2015, petitioners moved an application for impleadment in the said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, allowed by order dated 18.10.2010 passed by trial Court, challenged by the opposite party no.4 by filing Civil Revision No.9/2011, allowed by order dated 30.11.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order submits that the petitioners are a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the dispute involved in the present case as opposite party no.4 has filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat, no cause of action has occurred in his favour. So, keeping in view the above said facts, the order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Civil Revision No.9/2011 is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs. Estate of Padmasri Smt. Savitri Sahni 2010 (28) LCD 799, wherein paragraph no.26 held as under :-

“26. In the case reported in AIR 1995 Allahabad 7 (Committee of Management, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College and another. Vs. III Additional Civil Judge, Agra and others) as well as in AIR 1995 298 (Hridaya NarainSingh. Vs. Lal and another), this Court while interpreting the Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that it is the discretion of the court to add certain persons as party keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. For convenience, relevant portion of the Committee of Management, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College and another’s case is reproduced as under:-

“The theory of dominus litus should not be overstretched because it is the duty of the court to ensure that if for deciding the real matter in dispute, a person is necessary party, the court can order such persons to be impleaded. Merely because the plaintiff does not choose to implead a person, is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. are very wide and the powers of the court are equally extensive. Even without an application to be impleaded as a party, the court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party, who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. So the learned Addl. Civil Judge was totally wrong in believing that Sri Moti Lal Jain’s impleadment was not necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Although at page 4 of the judgment (page 153), while dealing with the point of dominus litus that the court may consider whether the joining of a person is essential or not but still he has proceeded to delude himself that even without the impleadment of Sri Moti Lal Jain, an effective decree could be passed. It amount to play Hamlet without the prince of Denmark.”

7. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners and going through the records, in order to decide the controversy involved in the instant matter, it is necessary to go through the provisions as provided under