Delhi High Court
Durgesh Bhardwaj & Ors vs Meena Kumari & Ors on 8 April, 2015
$~A-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:08.04.2015
+ CS(OS) 70/2013
DURGESH BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr.N.K.Kantanwawal and
Mr.Satyender, Advocates.
versus
MEENA KUMARI & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Prasoon Kr., Mr.Kshitij Kumar
and Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar,
Advocates for D-1 & 2.
Mr.Nimish Chib, Advocate for the
proposed defendants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
IA 1727/2013
1. This is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6
Rule 17 CPC for addition of defendants No.4 and 5 and for consequential
amendment of the plaint.
2. The accompanying plaint is filed seeking a decree of declaration that
the relinquishment deed dated 16.11.2005 executed by plaintiffs No. 2 to 4
in favour of plaintiff No.1 qua the suit property be declared as illegal and
void and also that the sale deed dated 23.01.2006 allegedly executed by
plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1 for the suit property and sale deed
CS(OS) 70/2013 page 1 of 4
dated 24.11.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3
qua the second floor with roof rights of the suit property be also declared
illegal and void. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendants No. 1 to 3
have fraudulently manipulated the documents in the course of getting the
property converted from leasehold to freehold and got executed and
registered certain documents in favour of defendants No.1, 2 and 3.
3. By the present application it is stated that after filing of the present
suit the plaintiffs have come to know that defendant No. 1 has sold the entire
ground and first floor of the suit property to one Smt Priti Goel w/o
Sh.Narender Kumar Goel i.e. proposed defendant No.4 and defendant No.3
has sold the entire second floor with roof rights to one Smt.Preeti Garg w/o
Shri Deepak Garg i.e. proposed defendant No.5. Hence, by the present
application it is stated that the proposed defendants No. 4 and 5 are
necessary and proper parties and should be impleaded as they would be
vitally effected by the outcome of the present suit. Consequential
amendments in the plaint are also sought.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed defendants No. 4 and 5
has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that when the
suit was filed in 2013, the plaintiffs were fully aware about the right, title
and interest of the proposed defendants, namely, defendants No. 4 and 5
inasmuch as the defendants No. 4 and 5 had purchased the property in 2012-
2013. He further states that prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs have
illegally and forcefully dispossessed the proposed defendants from the suit
property. Hence, he states that the plaintiffs were fully aware of the title of
defendants No. 4 and 5 and in view thereof, the said proposed defendants
CS(OS) 70/2013 page 2 of 4
cannot be dragged into this litigation. He further submits that defendants No.
4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers without any knowledge of the intentions of
the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 and 2 however
acknowledges that defendants No. 4 and 5 would be necessary and proper
parties.
6. We may also look at Order I Rule 10 CPC. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
reads as follows:-
"(2) Court may strike out or add parties--The court may at
any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such terms as may appear
to the court to be just, order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck
out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence
before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all
the questions involved in the suit, be added."
7. In Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of
Bombay; (1992)2SCC524 the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person
a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result
of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be
a question in the action which cannot be effectually and
completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been
drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct
interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is,
therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally
interested in the action in the answer i.e., he can say that the
litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally
that is by curtailing his legal rights."
CS(OS) 70/2013 page 3 of 4
8. It is apparent that the proposed defendants No. 4 and 5 have vital
interest in the outcome of the present suit. In case the plaintiff succeeds, the
interest of defendants No. 4 and 5 would be severally and adversely effected
by the outcome of the present suit. In my opinion, defendants No. 4 and 5
would be necessary and proper parties for the purpose of adjudication of the
suit. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
9. Defendants No. 4 and 5 are impleaded as a party in the present suit.
Amended plaint and amended memo of parties filed along with the
application are also taken on record.
IA No. 24985/2014
Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the present
application.
The application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
CS(OS) 70/2013
Complete paper book of the present suit be provided to the counsel for
defendants No. 4 and 5 who may thereafter within 30 days file their written
statements. Other defendants may also file their written statement to the
amended plaint within 30 days from today.
List before the Joint Registrar on 02.07.2015 for completion of
pleadings and other proceedings.
JAYANT NATH, J
APRIL 08, 2015
rb
CS(OS) 70/2013 page 4 of 4
