Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
NANJIBHAI JIVABHAI UMRIGAR – Appellant
Versus
DAHIBEN W/O MAGANBHAI KADIYABHAI – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12712 of 2018
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the application for impleadment of the petitioners as necessary parties in the ongoing civil suit concerning land possession. The ruling emphasized the importance of the principle of dominus litis, which grants the plaintiff control over the choice of parties, and the necessity of parties for effective adjudication [paras 24, 27].
A necessary party is defined as one whose presence is essential for the effective and complete resolution of the dispute, and the court has discretion to join such parties if their presence is deemed vital for the proper adjudication of the case [paras 18, 19].
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to preventing miscarriage of justice and does not authorize the court to re-evaluate facts or substitute its judgment unless there is a grave dereliction of duty or manifest error [paras 25, 26] (!) .
The principle of dominus litis allows the plaintiff to select the defendant and drive the litigation process, but the court retains the authority to add parties if their presence is necessary for a just and effective resolution of the dispute [paras 19, 20].
An individual is considered a necessary party if the outcome of the case could directly affect their legal rights or obligations. The test involves whether the adjudication would impact their legal interests or rights, not merely their interest or evidence they might provide [paras 20, 21].
The court examined whether the petitioners' possession over the disputed land was legally established or merely self-proclaimed. Since their possession was not legally recognized or adjudicated in their favor, they were not deemed necessary or proper parties to the suit concerning the land's title and sale deed cancellation [paras 22, 23].
The court clarified that the rejection of the petitioners’ application was justified because their claim of possession was not substantiated by a substantive legal finding, and their attempt to re-enter the dispute after losing in their suit was not justified [paras 23, 24].
The court reaffirmed that supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error but to prevent gross violations of principles of law or justice. The impugned order was found to be consistent with legal principles, and the petition for impleadment was rightly rejected [paras 25, 27].
The court also noted that the petitioners' claims were based on an agreement to sell and possession, which did not establish a legal right to be a party in the dispute over the land's title or sale deed cancellation. Their involvement was deemed unnecessary for the effective resolution of the primary issues in the suit [paras 11, 12, 22].
The request to continue interim relief was declined, as the proceedings could not be halted based on the petitioners' claims, which lacked a substantive legal basis for requiring such relief [paras 27, 28].
These points collectively highlight the court's reasoning in affirming the trial court's decision, emphasizing the importance of legal necessity, proper party participation, and the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim possession of land (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue for impleadment (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court discusses necessity of parties (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court emphasizes dominus litis (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. application for impleadment denied (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah assisted by learned advocate Ms.Bhoomi Thakore appearing for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Percy Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr.Viral Salot for respondent Nos.1 to 7, learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.K.Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Shivang Jani for respondent Nos.8.1 to 8.3 and learned advocate Mr.Vinay Vishen appearing for respondent Nos.9 to 13.
2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking following reliefs :
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.02.2008 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.46 in Special Civil Suit No.166 of 2008 and further be pleased to join petitioner as party respondents in the SCS No.166 of 2008 in the interest of justice;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to :
(i) Stay the implementation, execution and operation of impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.46 in Special Civil Suit No.166 of
2008;
(ii) Stay the further proceedings of the suit being Special Civil Suit No.166 of 2008 instituted before the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Surat in the interest of justice;”
3. The necessary facts leading to filing of the present petition could be stated as under.
3.1 The petitioners are in possession of land bearing old Survey No.352 (new Survey No.235) admeasuring 18,400 sq.mtrs. of village Vasu, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. On 31.03.1994, the petitioners entered into “Satakhath”/Agreement to Sell with father of respondent and other family members. The petitioners paid Rs.59,25,000/- towards sale consideration. The respondent handed over possession to the petitioners on 31.03.1994. Thereafter, petitioners reminded the respondents to execute sale deed but the respondents avoided to do the same. Hence, the petitioners filed Special Civil Suit No.227 of 2013 for specific performance, however, the said suit came to be dismissed. The petitioners filed First Appeal No.1092 of 2018.
3.2 Special Civil Application No.166 of 2018 is filed by subsequent purchaser for specific relief of cancellation of sale deed executed between the parties of suit, for same parcel of land. Petitioner since holds possession of said parcel of land upon the agreement to sell, has unsuccessfully preferred application at Exhibit-46 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead as party defendant in suit. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No.166 of 2008, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehul Shah would submit that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the application at Exhibit-46 filed in Special Civil Suit No.166 of 2008 to implead the present petitioners as necessary and proper party into the suit. He would further submit that subject matter of the special civil suit filed between the respondents is land of Survey No.352 (new Survey No.235) of Mouje Vesu admeasuring 18,400 sq.mtrs. old tenure land whereby the plaintiff of the suit, namely, Dahiben widow of Maganbhai Kaliyabhai etc. have filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed and other consequential relief. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that one of the relief claimed in the suit was to
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
