The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others V. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others held that as per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not a party to the suit for the effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession. Further, the original defendants filed their joint written statement, and when the evidence from the side of the plaintiff was closed, the original defendants filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and prayed for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party defendants alleging inter alia that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have illegally and unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land.
The trial court allowed the said application and ordered to impleaded the purchasers as defendants. The plaintiff dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court preferred the writ petition before the high court but the high court dismissed the writ petition which results in the present appeal before the supreme court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the trial court and the high court both have committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order I Rule 10. It was further argued that the plaintiffs are domius litis and nobody can be permitted to be a defendant without the permission of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment titled “Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418.”
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has submitted that because a portion of the suit property was illegally transferred in favor of the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court correctly granted the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and directed that the subsequent purchasers be impleaded as defendants. As a result, it is argued that the High Court made no mistake in dismissing the writ petition.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court held that the defendants in the suit filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not a party to the suit for the effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. At last, the supreme court allowed the present appeal and quashed the order of the high court and the trial court.
CASE NAME- Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others V. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6370 OF 2022
DATED- 16.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
