The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub Judge vide which the learned trial court had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for impleadment of the petitioner as an intervenor in a partition suit, held that the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code is subject to certain limitations and such discretion could be exercised against the wishes of the plaintiff only in case a party is found to be a necessary or proper party.
Brief Facts:
The respondents are plaintiffs before the learned trial court and they have filed Partition Suit. The father of the petitioner died intestate. An oral partition took place between the petitioner and his sister and separate allotments were made to them. One plot was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know that his khatiyani lands were being partitioned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an intervention application under Order-I, Rule 10(2) of the Code for impleading him as a party to the suit. The learned trial court rejected the intervention petition of the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2019. The said order has been challenged in the present case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the learned trial court is not sustainable and it is an erroneous order passed on wrong appreciation of facts. He argued that the plaintiffs and defendants were in collusion with each other and wanted to grab the land of the petitioner on the basis of fake, forged, and invalid documents. The learned trial court ought to have allowed the petitioner an opportunity to contest the claim of the plaintiffs and defendants.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petition of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned trial court. He argued that the subject matter property in this case was purchased from one Sharda Devi through a registered sale deed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Court has ample power to add or strike out the name of any person at any stage of the proceeding. It is entirely at the discretion of the court and the said discretion is to be exercised by the court for effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code creates an exception to the general rule that the plaintiff is the master of his suit, ‘dominus litis’.
The Court observed that the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code is subject to certain limitations and such discretion could be exercised against the wishes of the plaintiff only in case a party is found to be a necessary or proper party. Thus, the courts can order impleadment even against the wishes of the plaintiff if a party has a direct and legal interest in the subject matter of the property.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the petitioner has no right in the suit of the parties and he is a stranger to the proceeding.
Case Title: Ramvaran Sah v Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1793 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Umashankar Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Arun Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
