In the leading English case of Moser v. Marsden, Lindly L.J. has held that a party who is not directly interested in the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant but is only indirectly or commercially affected cannot be added as a defendant because the Court has no jurisdiction under the relevant rule to bring him on record even as a proper party. The position is no different under the Indian law. As laid down by this Court, "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." (See Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum). In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 1992 AIR SCW 846 this Court has held (SCC p. 531, para 14) (at page 851 (of AIR SCW):
"It can not be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect .......... It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action."
11 A. It will be seen that in paragraph 11 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier Judgment inMANU/SC/0003/1958Razia Begum, v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, wherein the Supreme Court pointed but that an application for addition can be allowed only when a person will be directly or legally interested in the matter. A person who is commercially involved shall not be allowed to be added as a party. The Supreme Court pointed that a person who wants to prosecute his own cause of action must file a suit separately usually he cannot be added as party in the suit filed by another person, as the law is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Civil Revision Nos. 371, 372, 373 and 374 of 1993
Decided On: 29.08.1997
Laxmanlal Jee Mandir
Vs.
Laxmiram Agarwalla and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.N. Sarma, J.
Citation: AIR 1998 Gauhati 89
Print Page
"It can not be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect .......... It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action."
11 A. It will be seen that in paragraph 11 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier Judgment inMANU/SC/0003/1958Razia Begum, v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, wherein the Supreme Court pointed but that an application for addition can be allowed only when a person will be directly or legally interested in the matter. A person who is commercially involved shall not be allowed to be added as a party. The Supreme Court pointed that a person who wants to prosecute his own cause of action must file a suit separately usually he cannot be added as party in the suit filed by another person, as the law is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Civil Revision Nos. 371, 372, 373 and 374 of 1993
Decided On: 29.08.1997
Laxmanlal Jee Mandir
Vs.
Laxmiram Agarwalla and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.N. Sarma, J.
Citation: AIR 1998 Gauhati 89
