The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Sarawgi Vs Vishwanath Sarawgi held that the mere addition of the intervenor as the party does not create an interest in the suit property.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the plaintiff died in the year 1955 leaving behind three sons namely, plaintiff/petitioner, defendant/respondent No.1, and Hari Prasad Sarawgi. Thereafter, the property was partitioned among all the heirs. Furthermore, the parties applied for mutation which was allowed. The defendant took the suit premises on rent.
Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises on the ground that personal necessity for personal use for the expansion of his business. However, the defendant didn’t comply with the same which resulted in the filing of an eviction suit.
During the suit, the application of the intervenor/respondent No. 4 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as a party was allowed. Due to this, the present writ application is filed to challenge the order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider that defendant no. 1 is the grandfather of the intervenor and also the Karta and manager of the family. Furthermore, it was submitted that has not assailed the said registered deed of partition nor he sought cancellation on the ground that it is forged or fraudulent and The Intervenor is neither a necessary party nor proper party in the suit and has no interest in the suit premises. Also, the plaintiff has already mentioned the alternative relief in the plaint if the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the trial court was right in making respondent no. 4 a party as it would affect them directly. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to show any error in law or law or jurisdictional error committed by the court. Also, it is settled law that if a party is being prejudiced from the outcome of a suit, then he is a necessary or proper party to the said suit and he must be allowed to be added as party to the suit. Also, if the decree of eviction is passed in favour of the plaintiff, then, the respondent may object to the execution of the decree on the basis that he was not a party to the suit.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that both the Court's authority and the requirements of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code are fairly broad. The Court may order that the name of any party be added at any point in the proceedings, even without an application to be impleaded as a party. This applies to parties who should have been joined as plaintiffs or defendants or whose presence before the Court may be required in order for the Court to fully and effectively decide all of the issues raised by the suit.
It was furthermore observed that the basic principle of adding parties is that there must be finality in litigation, and in order to achieve that goal, it would be the Court's responsibility to add a party whose participation would be required to definitively resolve all of the issues in the case. The term "questions involved in the suit" as used in Order 1 Rule 10 refers to both the original questions framed between the parties to the suit as well as any dispute between the parties to the suit and a third party. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that, in the event that multiple disputes arise from a single subject matter, all parties involved in such disputes are brought before the court and that all questions in dispute between them are fully resolved.
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the judgments titled Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors, Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Center and Hotels Private Limited and Ors, Md. Sahood Alam Vs. Md. Nayyer, and Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Limited and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that 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.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Ratan Kumar Sarawgi Vs Vishwanath Sarawgi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1428 of 2016
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
