GAHC010099412025 2025:GAU-AS:17333

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1504/2025

HASEN ALI

S/O- LATE NADU SK, VILL- DAYARCHAR, PO- FEKAMARI, PS SOUTH

SALMARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, WHO REP. THE APPL NOS. 2 TO 4

2: ABDUR RAHMAN

S/O LATE HANIF UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE 7 NO. BASHBARI

PS BIJNI

DIST BONGAIGAON

ASSAM

3: NUR JAHAN BIBI

D/O LATE HANIF UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE 7 NO. BASHBARI

PS BIJNI

DIST BONGAIGAON

ASSAM

4: MRS. AMENA BEWA

W/O LATE MOZUL SK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WILLIAM NAGAR BAZAR

PS WILLIAM NAGAR

DIST EAST GARO HILLS MEGHALAY

VERSUS

MOHAMMAD ALI

S/O- LATE KITAB ALI, R/O- VILL- KANAIMARA PART II, PS SOUTH

SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI, NOW SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM

2:ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O MOHAMMAD ALI

R/O- VILL- KANAIMARA PART II

PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI

NOW SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM

3:MONIRUZZAMAN S/O MOHAMMAD ALI R/O- VILL- KANAIMARA PART II PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI NOW SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM

4:MOFIDUL SK S/O MOHAMMAD ALI R/O- VILL- KANAIMARA PART II PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI NOW SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B. HAZARIKA, MS. R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. SURAJIT DAS (R-1 TO 4), MR. P P DAS(R-1 TO 4)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

15.12.2025

1. Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

2. The applicant/appellant, namely, Hasen Ali, has filed this application under Order I Rule 10(2), R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for short) for impleadment of opposite parties no.1 to 4 as respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the connected RSA/160/2024.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellant that inadvertently, there was an error wherein the respondent nos.1 to 4 have not been impleaded as parties to RSA/160/2024. They are necessary parties as T.S No.431/2007 was partly decreed in favour but no order of recovery of possession was passed relating to the suit land which was held to be under the ownership and possession of respondent nos.1 to 4, who were arrayed as respondent nos.5 to

8 in the earlier title suit no. T.S No.431/2007.

4. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Somnath Banerjee Vs. Arati Rani Chakraborty and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 GLR

295, wherein it has been held as under :

10. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner, it would be proper for this court to reproduce the provisions of order 1, rule 10(2), CPC which is accordingly reproduced hereunder :

"10(2). Court may strike out or add parties. - The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person 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.”

11. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the object of the Rule is to bring before the court at the same time all the persons who are parties to dispute relating to one subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined at the same time without delay, inconvenience and expenses of separate action and trials. More so, sub-rule (2) of rule 10 gives a description to the court to meet every case of defect of parties. A Division Bench of this court in State of Assam v. Basanta Burman, AIR 1985 Gau. 13, taking note of order 1, rule 10, CPC held that "order 1, rule 10, CPC provides, inter alia, for adding parties or transposing plaintiff as defendant or defendant as plaintiff for effectually and completely adjudicating the disputes. It app