The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of AAA Vehicleades Pvt Ltd vs Balkishan Gupta consisting of Justice C. Harishankar reiterated SC’s observation as to who is a ‘necessary party’ in a suit.
Facts
On 6th May 2012, the respondent sold his Maruti Car to the appellant. The delivery receipt issued by the petitioner to the respondent required the petitioner to get the vehicle transferred in the petitioner’s name and to take full responsibility for maintenance, accidents, road tax, police challans etc., in respect of the car. The respondent alleged that the petitioner defaulted on the said assurance and did not have the car transferred in the name of the petitioner. The respondent came to know of this fact when the car was involved in a fatal accident, and summons, from the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) were received by the respondent. The plaint also acknowledged the fact that the car was successively sold, thereafter, by the petitioner to Gulshan and further, to Shamshad and to Amit. Despite this succession of transactions, the respondent alleged that the petitioner, in violation of the undertaking contained in the delivery receipt issued to the respondent, failed to have the car transferred in his name and that the car therefore continued to remain registered in the name of the respondent.
Procedural History
The respondent sued the petitioner for an amount of ₹ 18 lakhs along with interest, representing the expenses that the respondent claims to have had to suffer in prosecuting the litigations which arose out of the accident. Said suit is stated to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”). The petitioner moved an application, under O1R10 CPC in the same suit, seeking impleadment of the persons to whom the car was transferred after it left the hands of the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the learned ADJ rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the present petition was preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the impugned decision of the learned ADJ is unexceptionable, both on facts as well as in law since it is the choice of the plaintiff regarding whom to sue. In case the plaintiff sues a party who is not liable and fails to sue the parties who are liable, she/he does so at her/his own risk and costs:
“The impugned order of the learned ADJ notes as much, and protects the petitioner, by observing that the respondent-plaintiff would “(have) to face necessary implications as per law in case the said proposed defendants are found to be necessary parties after conclusion of trial”.”
It was also noted that a defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party. He can only contest his liability, qua the plaintiff, or, in an appropriate case, move an application for rejection of the suit outright, if it fails to make out any sustainable cause of action against the plaintiff invoking O7R11 CPC. He cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a party whom the plaintiff has not chosen to sue.
“The test for determining the parties who would be necessary or proper in a lis are, by now, trite and well established. Parties against whom reliefs are claimed in the petition and parties who would be prejudicially affected if the reliefs in the petition/plaint are granted are necessary parties in the plaint. Parties whose presence is necessary in order to enable the court to meaningfully adjudicate the controversy in the plaint are proper parties. This aspect has been lucidly enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.”
Judgment
The Bench noted that it cannot be said that Gulshan, Shamshad and Amit were either necessary or proper parties in the present case. It also noted that the petitioner’s interests had been adequately protected by the learned ADJ by the observation that, in case it was found that Gulshan, Shamshad and Amit were necessary parties, the respondent would have to suffer the consequences of their non-impleadment. So, the bench felt no need to interfere with the impugned order. So, this petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case: AAA Vehicleades Pvt Ltd vs Balkishan Gupta
Citation: CM (M) 1674/2019 & CM APPL. 50559/2019
Bench: Justice C. Harishankar
Decided on: 24th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :