The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the general rule of the plaintiff being the dominus litus is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC as per which 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 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 effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit be added.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of Petitioner no. 1 i.e. 2nd Respondent in the second appeal died at their native place. The mother and sister of the 2nd Respondent were unaware that the Second Appeal is pending since his father has not disclosed the status of the case to this court. furthermore, it was submitted by Petitioner No. 1 that they immediately contacted their counsel, inquiring about the pendency of the second appeal. Then, they filed a present application to implead himself, his mother, and his sister as respondents in the Second Appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioners were unaware of the pendency of the second appeal, due to which they were unable to file an application to implead them as Respondents in the second appeal. It was furthermore contended that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the deceased already sold his share of the property to the 3rd Respondent under a registered sale deed, therefore, the Petitioners are not necessary and proper parties. It was furthermore submitted that the Petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC instead of Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC in order to save the period of limitation, which cannot be allowed.
Issue before the court
“Whether the petitioners can be permitted to come on record as respondent Nos.8 to 10 in the Second Appeal?”
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a necessary party is a party without whose involvement, the suit cannot be determined; as such, hence non-joinder of the necessary party is fatal to the suit. In general, the plaintiff is dominus litus, meaning he can choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to file a suit against someone he does not want to get any relief from.
It was furthermore observed that the general rule that the plaintiff is the dominus litus is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which states that the court may, at any point in the proceedings, add the name of any person who should have been joined, whether as a plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to properly and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, on the terms that the court may deem to be just.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal and others in which two tests to be satisfied for determining whether a person is a necessary party were evolved and they are as follows
(1) there must be some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings;
(2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. The main object of impleadment of a party is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
It was noted that the application was not filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC cannot be a ground to reject the application.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the petitioners are proper parties, they can be permitted to come on record as respondent Nos.8 to 10 in the Second Appeal.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bandaru Syamsunder
Case NO.: IA No.1 of 2020 in S.A.No.545 of 2015
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
