[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhuralal vs Shiv Prasad on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
1 MP-2868-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 2868 of 2025
BHURALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIV PRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal Nayan Airen, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2025
.......................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
With the consent, heard finally.
The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order
dated 04.03.2025 passed in RCSA No.34/2020, whereby the application filed
under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
has been rejected.
02. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that
Tehsildar, Depalpur issued notice to respondent No.1 stating that his house
was constructed on encroached land of Survey No.584/2 and a direction was
issued to remove the encroachment. In response to the said notice,
respondent No.1 submitted certain documents such as registered sale deed
bearing No.22/65 dated 15.02.1965 executed in favour of his father, proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
2 MP-2868-2025
tax receipts, water tax receipts and building permission in order to establish
that they are the owner of the land over which the house is constructed.
Thereafter, without considering the aforesaid documents, again direction was
issued to remove such encroachment.
03. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent No.1 filed a
suit i.e. RCS/A/34/2020 seeking declaration and permanent injunction
against respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of sale deed dated 15.02.1965
executed in favour of his father.
04. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of
himself as one of the parties in civil suit which came to be rejected vide
order dated 16.07.2022. Hence, present miscellaneous petition is before this
Court.
05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the impugned order passed by the trial Court in unreasoned and non-
speaking as the grounds raised by the petitioners have not been considered
properly. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the fact
that in another civil suit filed by one Raufulla in respect of the same
property, respondent No.1's application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC
was allowed vide order dated 24.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submitted that in the said civil suit, a decree was granted on
29.08.2005 as compromise took place in the Appellate Court and execution
of the decree is still pending. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial Court has
committed grave error of law by going into the issue of title at the stage of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
3 MP-2868-2025
deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
06. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of
Bihari Lal v/s Ramcharan (Civil Revision No.689 of 1982) decided on
15.12.1983. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered by the
Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Ashok S/o Babarao
Patil v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition No.10493 of
2022) & Full Bench of this Court in the case of Panna & Another v/s
Jeewantlal & Another reported in 1976 M.P.L.J. 170 . On such premises, a
prayer has been made that the present miscellaneous petition be allowed.
06. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 /
plaintiff submits that earlier in the year 2022, the petitioners herein have
filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment
of himself as one of the parties to the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1
and the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated
16.07.2022 on the ground that he has not filed any documents along with the
application to establish the he had purchased the said property from the
father of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that since the order dated
16.07.2022 was not challenged before the any Court of law, the same has
attained finality.
07. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further contended that after
rejection of the aforesaid application, the petitioners again filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The learned trial Court has rejected
the application vide order dated 04.03.2025 by observing that the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
4 MP-2868-2025
failed to establish his interest in the suit property. Not a single document was
produced by the petitioners to establish that as to how he is necessary party
to the civil suit. Hence, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the
application.
08. To prop up the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex
Court in the case of Shyamali Das v/s Illa Choudhary reported in AIR 2007
SC 215. Reliance has also bene placed upon couple judgment delivered by
this Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Rathi v/s Ravindra Modi reported
in 2012 SCC OnLine MP 2604 & Panna v/s Jeewanlal reported in 1976
M.P.L.J. 170 and a prayer has been made that present writ petition be
dismissed.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. While dealing with the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of
the CPC, the learned trial Court has held that the petitioners have not filed
any documents along with the application as to how they are the necessary
party to the civil suit filed by respondent No.1. Before this Court also, not a
single document has been filed to establish that as to how his impleadment is
necessary in the civil suit.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Shyamali Das (supra) has held as
under:-
' ' 1 0 A finding of fact was arrived at therein that the appellant was not a party
interested in the proceeding within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The said
order attained finality. It could not have, thus, been reopened. Another application
for impleadment, therefore, was not maintainable. It may be true that in the
proceeding of a suit, the court can in a changed situation entertain a second
application under Order 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
5 MP-2868-2025
Reference Judge having opined, while passing its order dated 26.2.2004 that the
appellant was not a person interested, in our opinion, a second application despite
the subsequent event was not maintainable.
12. In view of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the
respondents was justified in submitting that since the first order dated
16.07.2022 rejecting the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC
was not challenged before the any Court of law, the same has attained
finality.
13. In the case of Panna (supra), this Full Bench of this Court has
held that strangers to a contract making a claim adverse to the title of
defendant (vendor) contending that they are the co-owners of the contracted
property are neither necessary nor proper party and are therefore not entitled
to be joined as parties to the suit - If the parties are added as parties to suit,
scope of the suit would be enlarges and it would turned to be a title suit.
14. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court as well as this
Court, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed
by the trial Court. The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs.
Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph - 49 has
held as under:-
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following
principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition
under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two
Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The
history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially
different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the
High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
6 MP-2868-2025
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of
tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court
of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an
alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as
a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of
superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the
High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra)
have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various
other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases,
the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in
order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of
their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by
exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the
jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in
exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in
the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross
and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been
flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to
correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by
the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the
jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by
any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of
India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a
Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment)
Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under
Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory
amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of
superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an
appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation
of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires
that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control
by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36304
7 MP-2868-2025
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain
efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such
a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this
Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not
come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to
maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts
subordinate to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be
exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for
promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public
interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance.
Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject
to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive
and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."
15. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as no patent illegality has
been committed by the trial Court and the order passed by the trial Court
neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor from any perversity, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial
Court dated 04.03.2025.
16. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Ravi
