Chattisgarh High Court
Saddam Husain Qureshi vs Suresh Kumar Goyal on 21 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 521 of 2022
1. Saddam Husain Qureshi S/o Late Moinuddin Qureshi Aged About 30
Years,
2. Salauddin Qureshi S/o Late Moinuddin Qureshi Aged About 28 Years,
3. Aman Qureshi S/o Late Moinuddin Qureshi Aged About 26 Years,
4. Nasimun Nisha Wd/o Late Moinuddin Qureshi Aged About 66 Years
All R/o Mayapur, Ward No. 2, Gurudwara Ward, Nagar Nigam
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) --- Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar Goyal S/o Ganga Vishnu Goyal Aged About 47 Years
R/o Village Narmadapur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur,
District Surguja (Now District Surajpur) (C.G.)
2. Masoon Qureshi S/o Dilshad Ahmed Aged About 33 Years R/o
Mayapur, Ward No. 32 Gurudwara Ward, Nagar Nigam Ambikapur,
District Surguja (C.G.)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur
(C.G.)
4. Smt. Sunita Mittal W/o Shri Suresh Mittal Aged About 28 Years R/o
Mayapur, Chandini Chowk, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
5. Smt. Sanjana Tayal W/o Mukesh Tayal Aged About 35 Years R/o
Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District
Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents/Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv.
For respondent No.1 : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Adv.
For respondent No.3/State : Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, PL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
21.11.2022
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
11.07.2022 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC), Surajpur in Civil
Suit No.50-A/2011 whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC; application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC; and
application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, have been dismissed.
2. Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiffs submits that
the plaintiffs had filed the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction and respondent/defendant No.2 by taking advantage of the fact
that plaintiffs are minor recorded his name in the revenue record.
Subsequently, the defendant No.2 executed the sale deed of the property
though no consideration was paid. Thereafter, defendant No.2 had sold
the suit property to defendant No.1 on 09.09.2004. Further, defendant
No.1 has alienated the suit property to defendants No.4 & 5 by way of sale
deed dated 03.03.2011. It is further submitted that during the pendency of
the suit, defendants No.4 & 5 had alienated the suit property to the
proposed defendants namely Sharda Goyal and Sushida Devi, defendants
No.6 & 7 respectively, on 13.10.2017 and on the suit land, they have
installed the petrol pump which is managed by its partners Lalit Kumar
Goyal and Bajrang Agrawal. Counsel further submits that considering the
subsequent development, the petitioners/plaintiffs had moved the
aforesaid applications to implead the subsequent purchasers, as also the
application for amendment along with the necessary documents of
subsequent sale and installation of the petrol pump on the suit land, which
have been dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mumbai International Airport
(P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 417 and submits that the plaintiff in a suit being dominus
litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate.
Therefore, considering all these aspects, the applications may be allowed
and the impugned order may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Shri Sinha, learned counsel for respondent/defendant
No.2 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioners
and submits that Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 itself
provides for doctrine of lis pendens and even the second subsequent
purchaser has given their declaration that they are bound by the decree
which has been ultimately passed in the suit so, just to delay the trial, the
plaintiff had moved the aforesaid applications. Therefore, trial Court has
rightly rejected the same.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and
orders annexed with the petition.
6. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd (Supra) it has been specifically
held that the general rule in regard to impleadment of the parties is that
the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against
whom he wishes to litigate. It is further held that a "proper party" is a party
who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would
enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon
all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour
of or against whom the decree is to be made. Therefore, considering that
the proposed defendants have purchased the suit property during the
pendency of the suit and also permitted the other proposed defendants for
installation of petrol pump, though, they are not a 'necessary party' but are
'proper party' and for a complete and effective adjudication, the plaintiff
himself chooses to be a party, and further considering the principles of
dominus litis, this Court is of the view that while rejecting the aforesaid
applications the approach adopted by the trial Court is not sustainable.
7. Thus, the aforesaid applications moved by the petitioners/defendants are
allowed. The trial Court is directed that after the amendment and
impleadment of the parties, sufficient opportunity be given to the other side
for consequential amendments.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
