Jharkhand High Court
Arindam Paul vs M/S Bhagwana Tower on 22 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:29133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No. 550 of 2024
-----
1. Arindam Paul, S/o Chanchal Paul, residing at 16/1, Natabar Paul Road,
Kadamtola, Howrah, P.S.-Bantra, P.O.-Kadamtola, Dist.-Howrah, West
Bengal
2. Abhishek Paul, S/o Chanchal Paul, residing at 16/1, Natabar Paul Road,
Kadamtola, Howrah, P.S.-Bantra, P.O.-Kadamtola, Dist.-Howrah, West
Bengal
3. Chanchal Kumar Paul, S/o Late Madan Mohan Paul, residing at 16/1,
Natabar Paul Road, Kadamtola, Howrah, P.S.-Bantra, P.O.-Kadamtola,
Dist.-Howrah, West Bengal, Petitioner Nos. 1,2 & 3 represented through
their Power of Attorney namely, Ajay Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Ramji Yadav,
R/o Village-Sitakata, P.O. & P.S.-Kamatanr, Dist.-Jamtara and Nand
Kishore Mandal, S/o Shiv Narayan Mandal, R/o Village-Nawadih,
Durgapur, P.O. & P.S.-Karmatanr, Dist.-Jamtara; vide registered Power of
Attorney bearing No. 01-1902-00314/2021 dated 09.01.2021.
4. Premankur Sreemani, S/o Late Uday Narayan Sreemani, R/o 17,
Mahendra Sreemani Street, P.S.-Amharst Street, P.O.-Amharst Street, Raja
Ram Mohan Sarani, Kolkata-700009, West Bengal, represented through his
Attorney-Ajay Kumar Yadav, S/o Ramji Yadav, R/o Village-Sitakata, P.O.
& P.S.-Kamatanr, Dist.-Jamtara; vide registered Power of Attorney bearing
No. 01-1902-00313/2021 dated 15.01.2021
... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Bhagwana Tower, a partnership firm registered under the Indian
Partnership Act having its office at Jamtara Bazar, Jamtara; represented
through one of its Partners Sanjay Kumar Parsuramka, S/o Late Shankar
Lal Parsuramka, R/o Jamtara Bazar, P.S., P.O. & Dist.-Jamtara
2. M/S Rameswara Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. a company having its registered
office at 23A Netaji Subhas Road, 7th Floor, Room No. 4A, Kolkata-
700001; represented through Sanjay Kumar Parsuramka, S/o Late
Shankar Lal Parsuramka, R/o Jamtara Bazar, P.S., P.O. & Dist.-Jamtara
3. Smt. Ashima Mallick, W/o Late Samar Mallick and D/o Late Gobinda
Dulal Sreemani, originally R/o 37/40 N.T. Road, Baidyabati, P.O. &
P.S.-Baidyabati, Dist.-Hooghly-712223; at present residing at C/o Amit
Paul, 175/E, Maniktola Main Road, Kolkata-700054
4. Narendra Kumar Gutgutia, S/o Late Binod Kumar Gutgutia, R/o
Jamtara, Kayasthapara, P.O. & P.S.-Jamtara, Dist.-Jamtara, Jharkhand
5. Sourav Kumar Gutgutia, S/o Late Prakash Kumar Gutgutia, R/o Village-
Sitakata, P.O. & P.S.-Karmatanr, Dist.-Jamtara, Jharkhand
... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : M/s Amit Kr. Das, Siddharth Jain, Preetam
Mandal & Sankalp Goswami, Advocates
For the O.P. Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Parasar, Advocate
-----
2025:JHHC:29133
C.A.V ON 10.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 22/ 09/2025
1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant civil misc. petition has
been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing
the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 68 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC has been allowed impleading opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in the
suit.
2. Plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit mainly for the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that Plot Nos. 601, 602 and 603 of Mouza Sitakata
(Karmatanr), PS Karmatanr, District Jamtara and all the old
house and structures standing thereon were the joint properties
of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3, Ashima Mallick and others
and no particular portion of the above property was owned
exclusively by any of them;
ii. A further declaration that Sale Deed No. 193 and 194 both dated
12.11.2020 were null and void, mala-fide and illegal;
iii. Cancellation of the above mentioned two registered sale deeds
iv. Mandatory injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 from
entering into possession of the property covered by two
impugned sale deeds as mentioned above.
3. Opposite party nos. 4 and 5 filed an intervener application on
04.03.2022 claiming right, title and interest over the suit property by
way of inheritance. It has been contended that Khatiyan No. 32/7 was
recorded in the name of Gulab Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia and the
petitioners were heirs and descendants of the recorded tenant.
4. Learned Trial Court allowed the petition on the ground that the
petitioners have also produced Parcha in support of their averments
with regard to the claim of title over the property. They were accepted
as proper parties and, therefore, they were impleaded.
5. Objection to impleadment is mainly two folds:
Firstly, it is submitted that the petitioners have not claimed any
relief against opposite party nos. 4 and 5.
Secondly, it is submitted that earlier a title suit was filed by the
predecessor-in-interest namely, Mahendra Nath Sreemany, against
2025:JHHC:29133
Gulab Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia, through which the present opposite
party nos. 4 and 5 claim their right, title and interest over the suit
property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-
interest of the plaintiffs and it attained finality on dismissal of revision
reported in 1934 SCC OnLine Pat 168 (Gulab Ray Ghutghutia Vs.
Mahendra Nath Sreemany). After the finality with respect to the
matter, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are intermeddling in the suit
property in which they have no rightful claim. On the principle of
impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, reliance is placed on 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1234 (Sudhamayee Pattnaik & Ors. Vs. Bibhu
Prasad Sahoo & Ors.) (Para 11) and (2020) 13 SCC 773 (Gurmit
Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.) (Para 5.2).
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the intervener-
applicants/opposite party nos. 4 and 5 that the present suit has been
filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property on
which the intervener applicants have title and possession and,
therefore, any decision in this case is likely to impinge the rights of
these intervener applicants.
7. It is contended that the suit is proceeding ex-parte against defendant
nos. 1 to 3. Relief for cancellation of sale deeds is consequential,
whereas the declaration of title over the suit property is the main
reliefs.
8. In Land Acquisition Case No. 02/2016-17, appertaining to Khata No.
32/7, Survey Plot No. 601 award was finally made in favour of Gulab
Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia. Further, prior to finalization of 1932
Survey Settlement, the property was transferred to Gulab Ray Marwari
@ Ghutghutia which was wrongly entered in the name of Babu Anand
Chand Rai in the tenant's column. Consequently, Babu Anand Chand
Rai instituted an objection suit before the Assistant Settlement Officer,
Jamtara along with Gulab Ray Marwari @ Ghutghutia who was the
co-plaintiff which was decided in their favour in Objection Suit No.
1070/1931.
9. It is argued that Judgment relied upon by the petitioners does not state
the details of the land and the parties and the decree has not been filed.
2025:JHHC:29133
In any case, the said judgment is before coming into force of Bihar
Land Reforms Act and the title of the raiyati interest of these
petitioners crystalized as they continued in possession after coming
into force Bihar Land Reforms Act.
10. It is mainly contended that opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have a valid
bona-fide title over the property and, therefore, the plea of
impleadment has been made. In this regard, reliance is place on (1992)
2 SCC 524 (Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.) (13, 14 and 18 and 19) and
(1999) 2 SCC 577 (Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur &
Ors.) (Para 9, 10) and AIR 1958 SC 886 (Razia Begum Vs.
Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors.).
11. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that
Annexture-E to the counter affidavit, which is the seat anchor of the
claim of the intervener applicants that they have a title over it, is not
the subject matter of the present suit by the petitioners/plaintiffs. In
Plot No.601, only 3 decimals of land was involved in the land
acquisition case. Annexure-F is a notice issued in Land Acquisition
Case No. 02/2016-17, during pendency of the suit, directing the parties
to produce documents in support of their claim over the property.
12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both
the sides, it will be desirable to refer to the fundamental principles of
impleadment of parties in a civil suit as set out in Order I Rule 10 (2)
of CPC, which is extracted below:
"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 to effectually and completely adjudicate
upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added."
13. What emerges from the above definition is that the Court has the
discretion to add any person as a necessary party in a suit to enable
effective adjudication of the questions involved. The non-impleadment
of a necessary party is fatal to the suit, whereas the non-impleadment
2025:JHHC:29133
of a proper party is not. A necessary party is one without whom no
effective decree can be passed; in their absence, the suit is liable to be
dismissed. A proper party, on the other hand, is not indispensable, but
their presence may facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of
all matters in dispute, even though no decree is sought in their favour
or against them [see Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v.
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417].
14. The settled principle of law culled from the authorities relied on by
both sides is that the plaintiff is dominus litis, having control over his
suit. He possesses the prerogative to choose the defendants to be
impleaded. The condition for impleading an intervenor is that the court
must be satisfied that such party's presence is necessary to effectually
and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in dispute. The
test of impleadment is to be applied from the standpoint of the
plaintiff, not the party seeking impleadment.
15. Much, however, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
and the nature of relief sought. A person is impleaded because a cause
of action is asserted against them, and once causes of action are joined,
parties are necessarily joined. Thus, in a suit for specific performance
of a contract, a third party who is a stranger to the agreement to sell is
not ordinarily a necessary party, and his presence is not required for
the Court to adjudicate the issues in dispute.
16. In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, when the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and seeks no relief against
the intervenor, as in the present case, he cannot be compelled to
implead a third party against whom he does not claim any relief. This
is because under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, a mere
declaration of title cannot be sought unless the plaintiff is in
possession; where he is not, he must seek consequential relief of
possession against the party in possession, who then becomes a
necessary party [see Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2020) 17 SCC 132].
This principle will not apply to a case where no relief of possession is
claimed, but the possession is with a third party. In such case no
declaration of title can be given. It is for this reason that in Kamlesh
2025:JHHC:29133
Gupta v. Mangat Rai (2020) 17 SCC 132 that by virtue of actual
possession being enjoyed by intervenor applicant, he was held as a
necessary party to the present suit.
17. Thus, in a declaratory suit for title, possession is the key for being
impleaded. In event if the plaintiff fails to implead a party in
possession, he does so at his own peril, as a declaration cannot be
given in such a case in view of the proviso to Section 34. Even if a suit
is proceeding ex-parte, plaintiff is required to assert and prove his title.
In the absence of evidence of possession, courts cannot grant
declaration of title, unless recovery is sought from one in possession.
18. A party impleaded has a right to raise his defence by filing pleadings
and leading evidence, at the stage he is impleaded. This has a direct
bearing on the trial of a suit, as it may amount to de-novo trial.
Therefore, any intermeddler who cannot show how the decision of the
case is to affect his right cannot be impleaded in a suit.
19. In any case if a plaintiff succeeds in obtaining title without impleading
a third party in possession, the said third party will still have remedy
under Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C, if he is sought to be dispossessed.
20. This is also for the reason that only the party to a suit can be bound, as
the judgment and decree, are not judgment in rem, but are in personam
save and except those of the nature under Section 41 of the Evidence
Act.
21. Here in the present case plaintiff has not sought for any relief against
the intervenor applicant, therefore the judgment and decree will not
bind them [OP No.3 &4]. There are materials suggestive of 03
decimals of land in plot no.601 being acquired in a land acquisition
case for which the compensation has been paid to the intervenors. This
alone cannot be a ground for impleadment, as declaration of title in
favour of plaintiff cannot be made with respect to this part of suit
property which has been acquired, and no consequential relief has been
sought for with regard to it. Except for this 3 decimal of land, there
does not appear to be any other documentary evidence of possession of
the intervenors.
2025:JHHC:29133
22. Under the circumstance and for the reasons as discussed above, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and is,
accordingly, set aside.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A.,
if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd September, 2025
AKT/Satyendra
