Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mamina Bai vs Ms. Shivalika Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. ... on 26 July, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
MISC. PETITION No. 3252 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAMINA BAI W/O LATE KANGAN SINGH PARDI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
1.
VILLAGE BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR,
DISTRICT INDROE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUMAN BAI W/O LATE MULCHAND PARDI, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
2.
VILLAGE BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DURGESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE
AND
M/S. SHIVALIKA VYAPAR PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR RAJENDRA S/O SHRI BABULAL
1. AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS PANCHDERIYA TEHSIL SANWER DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
MS. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPER
THROUGH ITS PARTNER ASHOK S/O LATE SHRI
2. BADRILAL NAWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 200, SANGHI STREET,
MHOW DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAGDISH S/O BABULAL AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 66
3. YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 8, JATI COLONY,
RAMBAG INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
ASHOK S/O LATE SHRI BADRILAL JI NAWAL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 200,
4.
SANGHI STREET, MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MOHAMMAD HARISH S/O LATE SHRI MOHAMMAD
YUNUS, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2
BUSINESS VILLAGE KARODIYA CHAUPATI, MHOW
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. MEENU W/O SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
6.
8, JATI COLONY, RAMBAG INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. VANDANA W/O SHRI JAGDISH AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
7.
8, JATI COLONY, RAMBAG INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAVITRI BAI W/O LATE RAMESHWAR PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
8.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
AARUKBAI D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
9.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHARMILA BAI D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
10.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SALA BAI D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
11.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
LEELA BAI D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
12.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
HIRAWANTI BAI D/O LATE ROOP SINGH PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
13.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARISAN BAI D/O LATE ROOP SINGH PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
14.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SALMA BAI D/O LATE ROOP SINGH PARDI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE
15.
BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
AMINA BAI D/O JARKHAN SINGH OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE BAJRANGPURA, TEHSIL
16.
DEPALPUR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
17. COLLECTOR OFFICE MOTI TABELA DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VINAY SARAF, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI SANJIL
JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7.
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - P.L. FOR RESPONDENT NO.17/STATE)
_________________________________________________________________________
Reserved on :- 4.7.2023
Pronounced on :- 26.7.2023
_____________________________________________________________
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, HON'BLE JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA, pronounced
the following
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners / defendants No.6 and 7 have challenged the order dated
17.2.2021 (Annexure P/4) passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Senior Division
Depalpur, District Indore in Civil Suit No.61A/2019 whereby an application
under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC filed by plaintiffs / respondents No.1 to 7
has been allowed and they along with the other defendants except the State of
M.P. have been directed to be deleted as parties to the suit.
2. The plaintiffs had initially instituted an action against all the defendants
and the State of M.P. for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with their construction over the suit property and from interfering
with their possession in any manner. It was essentially submitted that
defendants No.1 to 11 are contending themselves to be the legal heirs of their
sellers and at their instance an order has been passed by the Collector which
has been maintained by the Commissioner whereby the disputed lands have
been directed to be recorded as Government land by deleting the names of
plaintiffs thereupon.
3. During pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint to claim relief
primarily against the State of M.P. and for amending the relief clause which
was allowed by the trial court by order dated 3.2.2022. The plaintiffs thereafter
filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for deleting the
name of defendants No.1 to 11 from the array of defendants submitting that
they have not sought any relief against them, the main relief sought is against
defendant No.12/State of M.P, the presence of defendants No.1 to 11 is not
necessary for the suit and they are not proper parties to the same and if they
are allowed to continue as such it would result in misjoinder of parties and
shall effect the relief claimed for by them in the plaint. The application was
contested by defendants No.1 to 11 but has been allowed by the trial court by
the impugned order by observing that plaintiffs have sought relief only against
defendant No.12 and defendants No.1 to 11 appear to have been wrongly
impleaded as parties to the suit and it is the wish of plaintiffs against whom
they want to prosecute the suit.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners / defendants No.6 and 7 has submitted
that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law. In the plaint even as
amended there are detailed and specific allegations levelled against defendants
No.1 to 11 and it has been contended that whatever defendant No.12 has done
or is doing is at their behest. Even in the relief clause of the plaint relief has
been sought against all the defendants and not against defendant No.12 alone.
The decision to be rendered in the suit shall have a direct bearing upon their
interests hence they are necessary parties to the suit and could not have been
deleted there from.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for plaintiffs / respondents No.1 to 7
has supported the impugned order and has submitted that plaintiffs are the
dominus litus of their suit and it is their free will to choose defendants against
whom they wishes to proceed. Amendment was allowed by the trial court
earlier which has not been challenged by defendants No.1 to 11 in view of
which no relief has been sought by plaintiffs now against them. The plaintiffs
cannot be compelled to implead any person against their wishes particularly
when no relief has been claimed against him. The decision to be rendered in
the suit shall not have any bearing upon the interests of defendant No.1 to 11
who are hence not necessary parties to the same. It is hence submitted that
petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed by him on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Gurmeet Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant
Robinson & Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 733 .
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. In the suit which was initially instituted by plaintiffs they had impleaded
defendants No.1 to 11 as parties and had made detailed, specific and
exhaustive averments as regards their actions which had resulted in casting a
cloud upon their title to the disputed land. Though thereafter the amendment as
proposed by plaintiffs has been allowed which has not been challenged by
defendants No.1 to 11 but the said amendment was only in respect of seeking
relief mainly against defendant No.12 but including the defendants. The
pleadings of the plaint made in respect of defendants No.1 to 11 remained as it
is. The averments made against them have not in any manner been deleted by
the plaintiffs.
8. Even in the amended plaint the relief clause of the plaint states that
plaintiffs are claiming relief against defendants and mainly against State of
M.P. It is not the case where plaintiffs have stated that they are claiming relief
only against State of M.P. and are not claiming any relief against defendants
No.1 to 11. Thus the contention of plaintiffs that they are not seeking any
relief against defendants No.1 to 11 is belied from the plaint. On the contrary
there are exhaustive and direct allegations having been levelled against
defendants No.1 to 11 in the plaint which stands as it is despite amendment by
plaintiffs and relief has also been sought against all the defendants.
9. While it is true that plaintiffs are the dominus litus of their case and are
entitled to choose the persons against whom they would wish to proceed and
cannot be forced to implead any person as a party against their wishes, but it is
also equally true that if the enjoyment of rights of any person is likely to be
prejudiced by the final decision to be rendered in the suit, then that person
automatically becomes a necessary as well as a proper party to the suit. For the
purpose of protecting his interest he is very much required to be impleaded. In
the present case defendants No.1 to 11 were initially impleaded as parties to
the suit with specific allegations against them which remain as it is hence to
say that they are not necessary or proper parties to the suit would not be
legally acceptable. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for
plaintiffs is hence not applicable to the facts of the case.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the trial court has erred in passing the
impugned order. The same is hence set aside though only in respect of
defendants No.6 and 7. The petition is, accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by SHAILESH
SS/- MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Date: 2023.07.27 10:13:26
+05'30'
