1. Revision petition challenging rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3984
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Manoj Kumar Garg, J
Santosh Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ayub – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 212/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.D. Gaur
For the Respondents: Parvej Moyal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.D. Gaur
For the Respondents: Parvej Moyal
Under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, parties who were originally impleaded in a suit should not be deleted from a revision petition if they are necessary to ensure the complete and final adjudication of the disputes arising from the subject matter.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Joinder and Striking Out of Parties - Order I Rule 10(2) CPC - The court may strike out the name of any party improperly joined or add a person whose presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. (Para 10)
(B) Litigation Finality - Scope of Parties - Where parties were originally impleaded as defendants in a suit and are subsequently impleaded as proforma respondents in a revision petition challenging an order affecting the suit, it is not proper to delete them as their presence ensures finality to the litigation. (Para 11, 13)
Issues: Whether the proforma respondents (original defendants) should be deleted from the array of respondents in the revision petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff seeks deletion of performa respondents; petitioners oppose deletion as respondents were impleaded as defendants in the suit. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Respondents 2 to 17 were impleaded as defendants in the suit and summons were issued; petitioners impleaded them as performa respondents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Court may at any stage strike out improperly joined parties, but this power is not to be exercised in a revision petition against performa respondents. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Application for deletion of respondents 2 to 17 from the array of respondents is dismissed. (Para 17 )
6. Can a court strike out parties in a revision petition at the behest of a plaintiff who originally impleaded them?
No. The court declined to delete performa respondents, observing that the plaintiff had themselves impleaded them as defendants in the suit. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. What is the principle governing addition or deletion of parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC?
The underlying principle is finality to litigation, ensuring all interested parties are before the court to completely settle all questions in the suit. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Is the plaintiff's original decision to implead parties binding on the petitioner in a revision?
The court held that since the plaintiff originally impleaded the respondents as defendants, it was not proper to delete their names on the plaintiff's application. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 )
1. Santosh Kumar Gandhi S/o Omprakash Gandhi, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 24, Dilip Kumar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
2. Mukesh Parihar S/o Balveer Singh Parihar, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Mali, R/o Pariharon Ka Bas, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohd. Ayub S/o Nathuji, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Chheepa Colony, Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur. Presently - House No. 5003, Peepli Chowk, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. (Plaintiff)
2. Anwar Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.
3. Harun Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.
4. Yakub Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.
5. Mohd. Shareef Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.
6. Khaja Hussain S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.
7. Mohd. Yusuf S/o Shamsuddin, By Caste Lohar Musalman, R/o Near Bijli Ghar, Nagauri Gate Circle, Jodhpur.
8. Smt. Shahida Bano W/o Shamsuddin, By Caste Lohar Musalman, R/o Near Bijli Ghar, Nagauri Gate Circle, Jodhpur.
9. Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Padmaram Ji, By Caste Suthar, R/o Paharganj Second, Jodhpur.
10. Padamchand Mutha S/o Lakhichand Ji Mutha, By Caste Oswal, R/o Peeyush Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar Main Road, Jodhpur.
11. Hem Singh S/o Om Singh Ji, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Lordi Panditji, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
12. Hemaram S/o Pratapram Ji, By Caste Patel, R/o Village Lordi Panditji, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
13. Smt. Rekha Luniya W/o Shri Chintajan Luniya, By Caste Jain, R/o B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
14. Kailash Rathi S/o Shri Deendayal, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o Suraj Bera, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
15. Satyanarayan Tak S/o Khinyaram Ji, By Caste Mali, R/o Tako Ki Dhani, Birani, Jodhpur.
16. Mahesh Kumar Dayani S/o Shri Manchharam Ji, By Caste Sindhi, R/o C-3, Shivshakti Nagar, Outside Mahamandir Teesri Pole, Jodhpur.
17. Allabux Alias Allahbux Chheepa S/o Nathuji Chheepa, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Chheepa Colony, Outside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.D. Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parvej Moyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/09/2024
The matter comes up on an application on behalf of respondent no.1 applicant for deletion of name of respondents No. 2 to 17 from the array of respondents.
It is submitted by the applicant respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 is the only plaintiff in the original suit and respondents No. 2 to 17 are performa respondents and they have nothing to do with the impugned order, therefore, the name of respondents No.2 to 17 who are original defendants may be deleted from the array of respondents in the present appeal.
Per contra, counsel for the petitioners opposed the application filed by the respondent no.1 and submitted that the plaintiff while filing the civil suit, had himself impleaded respondent No. 2 to 17 as defendants and the court below had even issued summons to the said defendants. Further, it is the prerogative of the petitioners as to whom they want to implead as party respondents in the revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record.
Sub-Rule 10(2) of Rule 1 CPC provides as follows:
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.
It
