Delhi High Court
Kanta Yadav vs Ganga Vihar Colony & Ors. on 8 August, 2023
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.08.2023
+ CM(M) 1265/2023 & CM APPL. 40385/2023 & 40386/2023
KANTA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate
(through VC)
versus
GANGA VIHAR COLONY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Civil Judge-II, South West
District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ('Trial court') in CS SCJ No. 818/2019,
whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the Respondent No.5
herein under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') and
consequently, impleaded the Respondent No.5 as defendant No.2 in the civil
suit.
1.1 The Petitioner herein is the original defendant No.1. The Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs in the suit, The Respondent No.5 has been
arrayed as newly impleaded defendant no.2 in the said suit.
2. The civil suit has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the sale deed
relied upon by defendant No.1 with respect to the subject property.
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:12.08.2023
15:43:45
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he does not dispute the
newly impleaded Respondent No.5 is a necessary and a proper party, he
however, states that Respondent No.5 should have been impleaded as a co -
plaintiff and not as a co-defendant.
3.1 He states that the interest of defendant No.2 are adverse to defendant
No.1. He states that defendant No.2 is relying upon the sale deed to defeat the
claims of defendant No.1.
3.2 He states that there are several legal proceedings pending inter -se
between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused
the record.
5. The impugned order dated 18.08.2022 records that the plaintiffs had no
objections to the application of impleadment being allowed and accordingly,
the said application was allowed by the Trial Court after opining that the
defendant No.2 is a necessary party.
6. As noted hereinabove, the Petitioner as well has not challenged the fact
that the newly impleaded defendant No.2 is a necessary party in view of her
assertion that she has purchased the subject property vide sale documents
dated 01.04.2015.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that there is
no infirmity in the impugned order of the Trial Court allowing the application.
The concern of the Petitioner herein that there are inter -se disputes between
defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 can be addressed by permitting the
defendant No.1 herein to file an additional pleading as contemplated in Order
8 Rule 9 of CPC for limited purpose of rebutting the stand taken by the
defendant No.2 in her written statement. The right to file the said additional
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:12.08.2023
15:43:45
pleading will be governed by the law laid down by this Court at paragraph 22
in Kedar Nath & Ors. v. Ram Parkash & Ors 1999 (48) DRJ (FB).
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of,
upholding the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court. Pending
applications are also stand disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 8, 2023/rk/aa
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:12.08.2023
15:43:45
