Whether a person can seek that he be added as party to a suit if there is any dispute between him and defendant?

 Point No. (i):- The interveners mainly contended that the property has wrongly been sold by Mahabir Singh his uncle even including the share of the intervener in favour of the defendant 1st party. In fact the intervener are the real owner and in possession of the property of their share. The sale deed is illegal sale deed. So far these allegations are concerned, there is nothing on record in support of these facts. According to the defendants, the properties were sold by Mahabir Singh who was one of the settlee. Now, therefore, this dispute raised by the intervener is dispute between defendants because if the intervener will be added, they will be defendant in the suit. In my opinion, therefore, the inter se dispute between the defendants cannot be decided in a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC speaks about the jurisdiction of the Court and not the right of a party for being added as defendant. If the intervener are not necessary party and in absence of the interveners, if the dispute raised between the parties can be effectively decided by the Court, the Court should not add a person whose presence is not required for just decision of the case. Here, as stated above, the plaintiff approached the Court with a particular case which was denied by the defendants. This dispute is to be decided and the trial Court has dealt with the controversy between the plaintiff and the contesting defendants. Now, these interveners are raising another controversy against the contesting defendants for which neither there is any pleading nor there is any evidence. In such circumstances, for the purpose of setting aside the Judgment and Decree, the intervener cannot be added as a party after such a long period. The suit is of the year 1976 and the application has been filed in this First Appeal in the year 2015, i.e., after 39 years. Further the dispute as to whether the plaintiff has got title or not can very well be decided in absence of these interveners because they are not saying anything against the plaintiff but are making allegation against the contesting defendant. In my opinion, therefore the interveners are not at all necessary party and accordingly, this intervention application, i.e., I.A. No. 3490 of 2015 is hereby rejected. {Para 15}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

First Appeal No. 530 of 1982

Decided On: 07.07.2015

Sahood Alam and Ors.  Vs. Nayyer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

Citation: MANU/BH/0423/2015.

Print Page

Whether addition of the intervenor as party will create his interest in the suit property?

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and on considering the material on record, it appears that learned Court below has considered the impleadment application and submissions made on behalf of the parties and passed the detailed and reasoned order exercising his jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Court below observed that plaintiff has also sought alternative relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendants denied relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted their independent title over the suit land. The Court framed issues on 28.05.2013 which includes issue of title as well. The petitioner challenged the deed of partition dated 19.12.1988 as fraudulent and illegal. So, the suit does not seems to be one of tenancy rather complex issue of title is involved here. The intervenor has no right to birth in the suit property is a matter of investigation. Mere addition the intervenor as party will not create an interest in the suit property. So, the learned Court below found the presence of the intervenor is necessary for efficacious adjudication of this case and the addition is also necessary for avoidance of multiplicity of suits. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1428 of 2016

Decided On: 08.08.2023

 Ratan Kumar Sarawgi  Vs. Vishwanath Sarawgi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.

Citation:  MANU/BH/0947/2023.

Print Page

Can the court permit the plaintiff to add any party to suit even if that party is neither necessary nor proper?

 9.0. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the High Court is that plaintiffs, is the dominus litus and heavy reliance is placed in the case of Kasturi (supra). However, the principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and / or proper parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3703-3750 OF 2022;

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. Vs ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS.

Coram:  M.R. SHAH; J., B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. 

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated:  JULY 12, 2022 

Print Page

Can a person claim to be added as a party in a partition suit if he has entered into an agreement of sale with one defendant?

 The well entrenched principle is that the plaintiff is dominus litis which latin expression means that the plaintiff is the master of the suit. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to wage a legal battle against a person, against the plaintiff’s Will. The exception would be if the compulsion of law would necessitate the presence of third party, either as necessary party or proper party. A distinction between the plaintiff seeking addition of third party, and either, third party of the defendant invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code, will also have to be borne in mind. {Para10}

11. In the present case, the plaintiff is opposing the impleadment. Respondent 15 and 16-third parties preferred an application seeking impleadment on the premise that the Agreement of Sale clothes them with the status of necessary and at any rate, proper parties. The

plaintiff, who is the dominus litis, is opposing the impleadment. The

short question which is required to be answered, is whether the third

parties are necessary or proper parties.

12. I have already held that the third parties do not have any

share or interest in the subject matter of the suit. The Agreement of Sale does not create any interest in the property. A necessary party would be a party, in whose absence, no effective decree can be passed. A proper party, would be a party, in whose absence, an effective order can be passed but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceedings.

13. In the factual matrix, the suit is brought for partition and

possession. The third parties, who claim to hold an Agreement of Sale executed qua the suit property by defendant 1 are neither necessary parties nor a proper parties considering the question involved. 

14. The third parties claim to have an Agreement of Sale executed in their favour by defendant 1. The right of third parties to enforce the agreement is restricted to defendant 1 and the property which may fall to his share in view of the final adjudication in the partition suit. The third party may, if permissible in law, proceed on the basis of the Agreement of Sale, against the portion of the suit property which may be allotted to the defendant 1, in the partition suit.

16. The said decision and the other decisions which consider

similar situation do not take the case of third parties any further since third parties have no interest in the property and merely hold an Agreement of Sale and not Conveyance Deed as would transfer title and create share and interest in the property in favour of third parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF 2019

 Jagannath Khanderao Kedar Vs  Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar 

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 6th JUNE 2022

Print Page

Whether the husband is a necessary party to suit filed by father-in-law against daughter-in-law for her eviction from his house?

 Question No.7

118. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the

direction issued by the High Court that the husband of

respondent be impleaded by the Trial Court by invoking

suo moto powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC, submits that

no relief having been claimed against the son of the

appellant, he (son) was neither necessary nor proper

party. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on

the judgments of this Court in Razia Begum Vs.

Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 and

Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of

Greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 SCC 524. Latter

judgment of this Court discussing judgment of Razia

Begum has laid down following in paragraphs 10 and 12:

“10. The power of the Court to add parties

under Order I Rule 10, CPC, came up for

consideration before this Court in Razia Begum

(supra). In that case it was pointed out that

the Courts in India have not treated the matter

of addition of parties as raising any question

of the initial jurisdiction of the Court and

that it is firmly established as a result of

judicial decisions that in order that a person

may be added as a party to a suit, he should

have a direct interest in the subject-matter of

the litigation whether it be the questions

relating to moveable or Immovable property.

12. Sinha, J. speaking for the majority

said that a declaratory judgment in respect of

a disputed status will be binding not only upon

parties actually before the Court but also upon

persons claiming through them respectively. The

Court laid down the law that in a suit relating

to property in order that a person may be added

as a party, he should have a direct interest as

distinguished from a commercial interest in the

subject-matter of the litigation. Where the

subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration

as regards status or a legal character, the

rule of presence of direct interest may be

relaxed in a suitable case where the Court is

of the opinion that by adding that party it

would be in a better position effectually and

completely to adjudicate upon the controversy.

…………”

119. There can be no dispute with the preposition of

law as laid down by this Court in the above two cases.

In the present case, although plaintiff has not claimed

any relief against his son, Raveen Ahuja, the husband

of the respondent, hence, he was not a necessary party

but in view of the fact that respondent has pleaded her

right of residence in shared household relying on

Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 and one of the

rights which can be granted under Section 19 is right

of alternate accommodation, the husband is a proper

party. The right of maintenance as per the provisions

of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is that of

the husband, hence he may be a proper party in cases

when the Court is to consider the claim of respondent

under Sections 17 and 19 read with Section 26 of the

Act, 2005.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2483 of 2020

SATISH CHANDER AHUJA Vs  SNEHA AHUJA 

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to hear the proposed defendant before adding him as a party to suit?

This Court is not even remotely suggesting as to what order learned Court below should have had passed. All that this Court is observing is that had the notices been issued to the petitioners of the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, then they would have got an opportunity to respond to the same, take all pleas available opposing the said application and the Court would have had then passed a reasoned order whether to implead them or not after taking note of the respective pleas of the parties. Learned Court below having failed to do so has indeed caused grave prejudice to the petitioner.

26. Before parting with the case, this Court would like to observe that though it is not in dispute that Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code expressly does not provides that a proposed party has to be heard before being impleaded but then the said provision can also not be read so as to mean that under no circumstance/situation, notice need not be issued to a proposed party. In my considered view, a harmonious construction of the said provision is that whether or not before impleading a party in a lis, notice to the proposed party should be issued or not, will depend upon facts of the lis itself. In a suit like the present one, where contentious issues are involved, prudence and fair play demands that before order is passed on the application, proposed party should be given an opportunity of being heard. By doing so, while the Court shall be causing no prejudice to the applicant who seeks the impleadment of a new person as a party, justice will also be done to the proposed party as it shall have the satisfaction of having been heard before any order on such an application is passed by the Court. Not only this, because the Court will have the benefit of the view of the applicant as also the proposed party, it will be in a position to pass a speaking order containing reasons explaining its decision.

27. In view of discussion held herein-above, the impugned order impleading petitioners as party defendants to the suit without giving them an opportunity of responding to/opposing the application filed for their impleadment is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 311 of 2018

Decided On: 16.03.2019

Ashwani Kumar  Vs.  Sanjay Kumar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

 Citations: MANU/HP/0194/2019

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while allowing application for addition of parties in eviction suit against tenant

Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to strike out or add parties whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit effectively and completely. However in doing so the Court must keep in mind that the scope of the suit is not enlarged and also the nature of the suit is not changed. It should also not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. !t is also imperative that the party sought to be added under the provisions should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of litigation. In every case the Court has got a discretion but it should be exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law. In the instant case it is clear that the plaintiff Peer Azhar Hussain has filed a suit with the allegation that he is the landlord and he let out the suit shop to defendant No. I and the latter in contravention of the terms of the contract let out the defendant No. 1 and thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sublet the same is defendant No. 3. The fact in issue in the case will be whether the plaintiff let out the shop to defendant No. 1 and whether defendant No. 1 sublet the same to defendant No. 2 and then defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 3. For adjudication of the above issues, the plaintiff will be called upon to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant existing between him and defendant No. 1 . In such a case the Court cannot embark upon the inquiry or rival claim of the plaintiff and petitioner regarding the title of the suit shop. The question of title cannot be investigated in such a case. The plaintiff will succeed or fail on his proving or disproving the above relationship. If the petitioner is arrayed a party there will be a rival claim regarding the ownership of me suit shop between the plaintiff and the petitioner. Without deciding the same the relevancy of arraying the petitioner as party will not be justified. In a suit for eviction the investigation of title is not warranted by law. Even if the petitioner is not made a party nothing is going to prejudice his case. The judgment delivered in this case will not be binding on him because that judgment will be a judgment in personam.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Civil Revn. Petn. No. 99 of 1998

Decided On: 04.02.1998

Talib Hussain Vs. Peer Azhar Hussain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.C. Jain, J.

Citation: 1998 DGL (Raj) 73

Print Page

Whether court can allow party to be impleaded as co-plaintiff if there is conflict of interest between original plaintiff and that party?

There is a serious dispute as to whether the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 have assigned their entire rights in the suit premises in favour of GITCPL as contended by Mr. Ankhad who represents plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 in the suit or whether the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 have only assigned 75% of their rights to the suit premises as contended by both Mr. Godbole and Mr. Dhakephalkar. GITCPL relying upon the deeds of assignment, has applied for impleadment and relied upon the provisions in Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. At the stage of deciding whether leave is to be granted under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC, a detailed enquiry is really not contemplated. Only a prima facie satisfaction would normally suffice. From this perspective, it will be only appropriate that both GITCPL as well as plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 continue as parties in the suit. The question really is about capacity in which they ought to continue in this suit.

16. There is also no warrant for the proposition that a party to the suit who may have assigned its interest in favour of a third party, is required to be necessarily struck out from the array of parties. The party to the suit who may have assigned its interest is entitled to continue as a party in the suit, because, in a given case, the covenant to supply a good title to the assignee and to assign property free from any encumbrances or litigations may continue upon such party. In the present case, there is a serious dispute as to whether the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 have assigned their 100% rights or the assignment is restricted to only 75% of the rights which they claim to have in the suit premises. In these circumstances, there was no justification to order deletion of the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 from the array of parties in the suit.

17. Although, GITCPL is entitled to become a party, the learned trial Judge, was not at all justified in impleading the GITCPL as 'co plaintiff' particularly when there is a serious conflict of interest between plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 on one hand and GITCPL on the other. Although, the exercise of power under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is discretionary, the discretion in such matters, cannot be exercised in unreasonable manner. In fact, this is what is held in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (supra) upon which reliance was placed by Mr. Godbole. In Bayajabai Patil (supra) Chief Justice M.C. Chagla, in the context of exercise of power under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has held that a party may be added as a co-plaintiff, when the plaintiff does not dispute the right of the co-plaintiff to the decree which might be passed; but where his right to property in suit is disputed by the plaintiff, the proper procedure is to join him as a defendant and not as a co-plaintiff. The principle in such matters appears to be that the original plaintiff, who is even otherwise dominus litis, cannot be compelled to proceed with the suit with a co-plaintiff, with whom, such original plaintiff may have a conflict of interest.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 5917 of 2017 and 13794 of 2016

Decided On: 20.09.2017

Daksha Keshrichand Jhaveri  Vs.  Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: Manu/MH/2165/2017:2017 SCC Online Bom 8448

Print Page

Whether court can allow application if it is made under wrong provision of law?

According to us, the application was wrongly filed under
Order I Rule 10 CPC and it should have been filed Order XXII
Rule 10 CPC which reads thus:
“ORDER XXII : DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY
OF PARTIES
xxx xxx xxx
10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in
suit.(
1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or
devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit,
the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or
against the person to or upon whom such interest has
come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal
therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the
person who procured such attachment to the benefit of
subrule
(1).”
8. It is well settled law that mere mentioning of an
incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to
pass such an order is available with the court.

NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10521 OF 2013

PRUTHVIRAJSINH NODHUBHA JADEJA  Vs  JAYESHKUMAR CHHAKADDAS
SHAH 
Deepak Gupta, J.

Dated:October 04, 2019
Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 533

Print Page

Whether legal heirs of deceased vendor can be added as party to suit for specific performance of contract under O.1 R 10 of CPC?

"9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others - MANU/SC/0319/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 733. He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. In the present case, the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only Kapoor Chand, but also his sons. Thus prima facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.

14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturi is case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced."

12. A reference to relevant portion of judgment in the case of Vidyawati (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f], is also necessary. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-

"4. This Court in Bal Kishan vs. Om Parkash & Anr. MANU/SC/0528/1986 : AIR 1986 SC 1952 has said thus:

"The sub-rule (2) of Rule of Order 22 authorised the legal representative of a deceased defendant to file an additional written statement or statement of objections raising all pleas which the deceased-defendant had or could have raised except those which were personal to the deceased-defendant or respondent."

5. The same view was expressed in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee & Ors. vs. Sri Kishan & Anr., MANU/SC/0616/1972 : 1973 (1) SCR 850 wherein this Court said:

"The legal representative of the deceased respondent was entitled to make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased respondent. In other words, the heirs and the legal representatives could urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased. Indeed this does not prevent the legal representative from setting up also their own independent title, in which case there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the Lrs. of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding thereby a separate suit for a decision on the title."

13. Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the trial Court has not committed an error in passing the impugned order and allowing the application of respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] by directing them to be added as defendants in their private capacity and granting them an opportunity to file their written statement. It is relevant that in the written statement filed on behalf of the deceased defendant no. 1, it was stated that the suit property was ancestral property, which came to the share of the said defendant and that his children i.e. respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] had rights therein. Therefore, there was already material before the trial Court indicating that the respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] did have a fair semblance of right and interest in the suit property. Merely because the said respondents had filed a Pursis before the trial Court adopting the written statement of deceased defendant no. 1 would not have the effect of prohibiting them from seeking their addition as party defendants in their own right in the suit and to file written statement to place on record their defence. It would be inappropriate to restrict respondent nos. 1 [a] to 1 [f] only to the written statement and the stand taken by the deceased defendant no. 1, particularly when they could be said to have interest in the suit property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 848 of 2017

Decided On: 04.12.2018

 Vishweshwar Vs. Uttam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2019(4) MHLJ 361

Print Page

Whether owner of tenanted property is necessary party to eviction suit against tenant?

 Mr. Dani, however, submitted that the petitioners, who
according to him, are admittedly the owners of the suit
property, are at least a proper parties to R.A.E. Suit No. 1148
of 2013 and therefore, were required to be impleaded as

parties to the suit. He submits that the petitioners in this case,
are entitled to contend that they do not want a decree of
eviction against their tenants on the ground of default in
payment of rent. In the alternate, the petitioners are entitled
to contend that the vacant possession of the suit premises be
restored to the petitioners than to plaintiff, who has per his
own pleadings in the plaint, claims to be only a rent collector.
15] Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
(CPC) entitles the Court, 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. The object of the rule is not to
change the scope or character of the suit by adding new
parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent
suit but simply to hold them to avoid unnecessary litigation

which might otherwise become necessary. The main object of
this rule is also not to prevent multiplicity of actions, even
though it may, incidentally, have that effect. The person to be
joined must be one, whose presence is necessary as a party.
When a right is claimed against him and when it is not
possible to pass an effective decree in his absence, he
becomes a necessary party. Similarly, if an adjudication is
likely to affect a party, then, ordinarily, joinder of such party is
necessary so as to effectually and completely settle the issue
between the parties and grant comprehensive relief.
16] In this case, as noted earlier, considering the nature of
the suit and the relief claimed, it cannot be said that the
petitioners were necessary parties to R.A.E. Suit No. 1148 of
2013. Mr. Dani, however, submits that the petitioners are atleast
proper parties and therefore, discretion exercised by the
Small Causes Court in ordering the petitioners' joinder was
incorrectly interfered with by the Revisional Authority.
17] Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC confers a wide discretion
to the Court to meet the every case of joinder or nonjoinder
of parties. However, discretion is required to be exercised not

arbitrarily, but on judicial principles. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is
the dominus litus. However, joinder can be ordered even
against the wishes of the plaintiff, if the situation, so
demands. The power to order joinder is normally confined in
two cases:
(i) When a party ought to have been joined, but is
not joined (necessary party); and
(ii) When, without presence of such party, the
question involved in the case cannot be effectively
decided (proper party).
18] The petitioners in this case, has failed to make out a
case that they are necessary parties to R.A.E. Suit No. 1148 of
2013. The reliefs applied for in the suit are perfectly capable
of being granted or refused without presence of the
petitioners. Any relief granted or finding recorded in R.A.E.
Suit No. 1148 of 2013 cannot, affect the rights, if any, of the
petitioners to suit property, regards which, there are already
several litigations pending between the parties. In fact, the
joinder of the petitioners in R.A.E. Suit No. 1148 of 2013,
might have the effect of altering the very character of such
suit and introducing a litigative front between the plaintiff

and the petitioners in the context of their respective rights
qua the agreement dated 8th January 1984 and the irrevocable
POA. Such disputes are quite alien to proceedings in R.A.E.
Suit No. 1148 of 2013.
19] In the absence of the petitioners, it is not as if R.A.E.
Suit No. 1148 of 2013 cannot be completely or effectively
decided. The presence of the petitioners is not necessary for
determination of real matter in dispute. The presence of the
petitioners is not necessary for effectual and complete
adjudication of all the questions involved in R.A.E. Suit No.
1148 of 2013. Thus construed, it cannot be said that the
petitioners are either necessary or proper parties insofar as
R.A.E. Suit No. 1148 of 2013 is concerned.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5624 OF 2017

Mr. Peter Cajetan Travasso vs. Shri. Lal Bherumal Laungani 
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

Dated : 10th October 2017.

Print Page

Whether legal heirs will get additional rights if they are added as party as per O 1 R 10 of CPC?

Defendant No. 3 has not been impleaded as legal representatives after the death of his father/original vendor, rather original suit has been filed against defendant No. 3. A distinction has to be drawn in terms of Order 22, Rule 4, CPC and Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. If] defendant No. 3 is impleaded with the aid of Order 22, Rule 4, CPC after the death of original vendor, then possibly he cannot go beyond the stand taken by the original vendor, but if he has been impleaded with the aid of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, then he would be in his individual capacity to take his own stand in the written statement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CR No. 4370 of 2017 (O&M)

Decided On: 27.11.2018

 Labh Singh Vs. Pal Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 P& H 17

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for court to consider issue of limitation while deciding application for addition of parties?

 It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the court's jurisdiction to consider an application for amendment of pleading is wide in nature, but, when, by reason of an amendment, a third party is sought to be impleaded not only the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) but also the provisions of Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. would come into play. When a new party is sought to be added, keeping in view the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C., the question of invoking the period of limitation would come in.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9931 of 2008)

Decided On: 09.01.2009

Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs.  Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) Thr. LRs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2009 SC 1948

Print Page

Whether third party can be impleaded as tenant in eviction petition?

It is surprising as to how the petitioner could have made these averments when admittedly no independent proceedings were filed by her to seek a declaration of her rights as a tenant except for the fact that the petitioner has some other motives, as these averments reflect. Secondly it cannot be overlooked that if such a plea is accepted, an assertion which is completely alien to the requirement of law for the court to be satisfied to consider any application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. would be accepted. A plain look at the averments in paragraph 14 (supra) of the impleadment application, in my opinion, reveals the real intention of the petitioner.

25. Thus there is much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of respondent No. 1. The reliance of Mr. Gorwadkar on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in "Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (dead) through L.Rs. v. Hanumanmal G. Biyani (dead) through L.Rs." (supra) is apposite, in contending that the only necessary party to the suit in question was respondent No. 2 -the tenant, and the petitioner would not become a necessary or a proper party. This was a case in which the appellant had impleaded defendant No. 1 who was an employee of the tenant firm. The tenant firm had suffered a decree, however, the suit was dismissed against defendant No. 1. Aggrieved by the learned trial Judge not passing a decree against defendant No. 1, plaintiff No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit against all the defendants and held that defendant No. 1 being an employee of the firm is bound by the decree passed against the firm and its partners (defendant Nos. 2 to 9). The High Court in revision upset the order passed by the learned District Judge and maintained the order passed by the learned trial Judge. This order of the High Court came to be challenged in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. It is in this context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court made following observations in paragraph 30 which read thus:-

"30. As a matter of fact, in our view, it was not necessary for the appellants to have impleaded defendant No. 1 in the present rent proceedings. The reason being that in rent proceedings the lessee/tenant is the only necessary or/and proper party and none else. A person, who claims through lessee/tenant, is not a necessary party".

26. Further Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 would be correct in submitting that the Court in considering the impleadment application under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of a third party, the question of limitation becomes relevant considerating the provisions of Order I Rule 10 Sub-rule (5) of Code of Civil Procedure. This for the reason that by such impleadment, the basic cause which was asserted at the time of filing of suit and in the present case in the year 1982 when the suit came to be instituted by respondent No. 1 is sought to be altered by the impleadment application of the petitioner. The effect of amendment, therefore, relates back to the basic cause of action which accrued to respondent No. 1 in the year 1982 and for that matter in the year 1995 when the second suit came to be filed. Mr. Gorwadkar's reliance on the decision of the Supreme in Alkapuri Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) through LRs. (supra) in supporting this proposition, is apposite. The Supreme Court in a similar context has made the following observations:-

"15. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the court's jurisdiction to consider an application for amendment of pleading is wide in nature, but, when, by reason of an amendment, a third party is sought to be impleaded not only the provisions of O.VI R.17, Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) but also the provisions of O. I R. 10, C.P.C. would come into play. When a new party is sought to be added, keeping in view the provisions of sub- rule (5) of Rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C., the question of invoking the period of limitation would come in."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2446 of 2017

Decided On: 19.09.2017

Minalini Lalit Modi Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: 2017(2) RCR (Rent) 459

Print Page

Whether insolvency court can permit addition of parties as per O 1 R 10 of CPC?

Under Section 5, Provincial Insolvency Act the Court in exercising insolvency jurisdiction can follow the procedure prescribed in the Code only when there is no procedure prescribed in the Act with regard to a particular matter but not when it is provided for in the Act. In other words the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will apply in the absence of any provisions in the Act. Where the Act prescribed a method by which a party can work out his remedy it is not open to him to call to his aid the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It is only on this basis that the rulings in 'Venugopalachariar v. Chinnulal', 49 Mad 935: AIR1928 Mad 942; Ayyasami Chetti v. The Official Receiver, Coimbatore', 61 MLJ 719: MANU/TN/0136/1931 : AIR 1932 Mad 63 & 'Abbi Reddi v. Venkata Reddi MANU/TN/0239/1925 : AIR1927Mad175 can be reconciled. I am of opinion that the decisions in 'Ayyasami Chetti v. The Official Receiver, Coimbatore', 61 MLJ 719: MANU/TN/0136/1931 : AIR 1932 Mad 63, 'Abbi Reddi v. Venkata Reddi MANU/TN/0239/1925 : AIR1927Mad175 are not authorities for the proposition that the procedure prescribed under the Code is to be followed irrespective of whether in the Act a specific provision is made with regard to a particular matter or not. If I may say so with respect, I agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges in 'Venugopalachariar v. Chinnulal', 49 Mad 935 : AIR 1923 Mad 942. Further the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 cannot be invoked by the respondent herein for being added as an additional party for another reason also. Order 1, Rule 10 lays down

"that a 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."

This rule indicates that a Court can direct addition of another party under two circumstances; either the name of any person, who ought to have been joined originally, was not added as a party or where the presence of a party is absolutely necessary to enable the Court to come to an effective and complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit. The position that there is no jurisdiction in a Court to add a party in any other case cannot be seriously disputed. See Mullah, 11th Edn., p. 517 and also the decision in 'Ramakrishnayya v. Satyanarayana MANU/TN/0335/1928 : AIR 1929 Mad 291 : 116 IC 137; 'Vaithilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Sadasiva Aiyar MANU/TN/0439/1925 : AIR1926Mad836 and 'Devendra Kumar v. Mt. Batasi Bai MANU/NA/0051/1933. Now what I have to consider is whether the petitioner can come within either of the two alternatives mentioned in Order 1, Rule 10 (2). Admittedly the respondent in this case cannot come within the first alternative laid down in that Sub-rule (2). The only question is whether he is a person whose presence is necessary for an effective & complete adjudication of the matters in dispute. I do not think his presence is necessary for any effective and complete adjudication of the matters in dispute. It cannot be said his presence is necessary for any effective and complete adjudication of the matters in dispute in this case. Even in the application for being added as a party he does not mention that there is something in the matter which cannot be decided without his being a party to the application. All that he alleges in the application is that, if for any reason, the petitioning creditor does not choose to proceed with his petition diligently, he would be willing to go on with that application. On these allegations in the affidavit, it cannot be said that' his presence is absolutely necessary for deciding whether the debtor should be adjudicated an insolvent or not.

8. It follows that the petitioner cannot be added as an additional party under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. This petition is therefore accepted and the order of the Courts below is set aside.

 Citation : AIR 1951 Mad 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Civil Revn. Petn. No. 1542 of 1949

Decided On: 05.09.1950

M.A. Jaleel Sahib 
Vs.
 Seeniappa Ramaswami Mudaliar and Co., by its Managing Partner N.S. Srinivasan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Chandra Reddy, J.

Print Page

What are basic principles for setting aside of abatement of proceeding?

Since no steps were taken to bring on record the
legal representatives of late Banwari Lal either in the first
appeal or in the second appeal, the appellants have filed CM
No. 1998/2012 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section
151 CPC) to implead (i) Shakuntala (ii) Gaurav (iii) Rachna and
(iv) Manju. Civil Procedure Code Order XXII stipulates the
manner in which the legal representatives of plaintiffs or
defendants ought to be brought on record. The prescribed
procedure cannot be circumvented by filing application under
Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. However, in
our view, it would be unjust to non-suit the appellants on the
ground of technicalities.
10 Provisions of Order XXII CPC are not penal in
nature. It is a rule of procedure and substantial rights of the
parties cannot be defeated by pedantic approach by observing
strict adherence to the procedural aspects of law. In Sardar
Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272, a Five
Judge Bench of this Court held as under:-
“26. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist
and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not
to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights
of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure
has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not
meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of
justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order
22 CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would
lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to
ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective
adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the
proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as
long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any
claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one
or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in
Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle
but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the
administration of justice. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6567 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22468/2013)
BANWARI LAL (D) BY LRS. & ANR. 
V
BALBIR SINGH .
Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ 1

Print Page