Shri Giridhar Gopal vs Smt. Ramawati Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4301 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
           CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1303 of 2018
     ======================================================

1. Shri Giridhar Gopal son of Late Birendra Kumar Singh resident of village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

2. Shri Murlidhar Gopal son of Late Birendra Kumar Singh 3.1. Alka Singh Wife of Late Rakesh Ranjan Resident of Village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District - Patna. 3.2. Aditya Singh Son of Rakesh Ranjan, Resident of Village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District - Patna.

3.3. Udit Singh, Son of Rakesh Ranjan, Resident of Village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District - Patna.

3.4. Mohit Singh, Son of Rakesh Ranjan, Resident of Village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District - Patna.

4. Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh son of Late Narendra Kumar Singh

5. Shri Indra Kumar Singh son of Late Narendra Kumar Singh All are residents of Village Main Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Smt. Ramawati Devi daughter of Late Sudarshan Singh wife of Late Ravindra Rai resident of village and Police Station Bihta and District Patna, at present residing at village Agianwa, Police Station Garhani and District Bhojpur/Arrah.

2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma son of Shri Arbind Kumar Sharma resident of village Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

3. Most. Manju Devi wife of Late Raj Kumar Singh resident of village Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

4. Shri Dr. Prakash Kumar Singh son of Late Jyoti Kumar Singh, resident of village and P.S. Bihta, District Patna.

5.1. Piyush Singh Son of Late Pramod Kumar Singh, Resident of village Main Road, Kubair, Colony Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna. 5.2. Rohit Singh, Son of Late Pramod Kumar Singh, Resident of village Main Road, Kubair, Colony Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

6. Shri Bijay Kumar Singh son of Shri Randhir Kumar Singh

7. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh son of Shri Randhir Kumar Singh Sl. nos. 6 and 7 are residents of village Purana Thana Road, Bihta, Police Station Bihta and District Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate Mr. Deep Shekhar, Advocate Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. B.N. Chowdhary, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 05-09-2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been

filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the

order dated 24.03.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 by

learned Sub Judge II, Danapur whereby the learned Court below

allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "C.P.C.") and

directed that the applicant Smt. Ramawati Devi (respondent

No.1) be added as a party-defendant in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff

filed a suit being Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 for declaration that

suit land described in Schedule-I of the plaint was joint family

property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 10 and

defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not have a right to sell the same and

the land sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant

No. 1 by a registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2011 having no

effect and the same may be set aside. The defendants (except

defendant Nos. 2 to 4) filed their written statement. The issues

were framed and three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

examined. The petition dated 09.08.2017 filed on behalf of Smt.

Ramawati Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of

the C.P.C. with prayer to add her as defendant in the suit as she

is necessary party stating that the suit property is the ancestral

property of the father of the intervenor-petitioner namely

Sudarshan Singh and after his death she is legal heir of her

father's property because he has no male issue and the plaintiff

also conceded in his cross-examination that Sudarshan Singh

has two daughters but he has not made party to them in the suit.

The said impleadment petition was objected by the plaintiffs on

the ground that the suit is mainly for declaration that alleged

deed of sale dated 16.03.2011 executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4

in favour of defendant No. 1 is void-ab-initio, fraudulent,

forged, fabricated and purchaser defendant No. 1 did not acquire

any right and title over the property and accordingly intervenor-

petitioner is not a proper and necessary party in the suit.

However, the said impleadment petition has been allowed by the

impugned order dated 24.03.2018.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that respondent No. 1, Smt. Ramawati Devi is not a

necessary party as in no manner it can be said that her presence

is necessary as party-defendant in the suit to decide any issues Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

or for passing a judgment or any of the reliefs prayed for by the

plaintiff. He has further submitted that Smt. Basmati Devi

alongwith her daughter Smt. Bina Devi and then minor daughter

Smt. Ramawati Devi had filed Title Partition Suit No. 38 of

1969 for partition in respect of their one-third share which was

dismissed for default vide order dated 28.01.1977. He next

submits that the suit is not the suit for partition but is for

declaration of sale deed as void-ab-initio and the intervenor is

not affected by the decision in the suit as she has no interest in

the suit land and the law is well settled that if the intervenor is

not a necessary or proper party, the plaintiff being dominus litis,

the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

No. 1 has submitted that plaintiff is claiming the suit property as

joint family property and the petitioner being legal heir of co-

sharer of the joint hindu property, is necessary and proper party

and the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the impleadment

petition of defendant No. 1 by the reasoned order which does

not require any interference by this Court in its supervisory

jurisdiction.

6. Law is well settled that the provision of Order 1

Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. are very wide and powers of the Court Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

are equally extensive. Even without an applicant to be

impleaded as a party, the Court may, at any stage of the

proceedings order that the name of any party, 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. The underlying principles regarding the

addition of parties is that there must be finality to the litigation

and to secure that purpose it would be incumbent upon the

Court to add a party whose presence would be necessary to put

an end to all controversy in the litigation finally, "question

involved in the suit" referred to in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC means

not only the questions involved in the suit originally framed

between the parties to the suit but also any dispute between the

parties of the suit and a third party, and that the object of the

provision is that where several disputes arise out of on subject

matter all the parties interested in the such disputes should be

brought before the court and all questions in contest between

them should be completely settled in the action.

8. In Rameshchand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524 the Apex Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

Court held in paragraph 14 as under:

"It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of action though it may incidentally have that effect....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 litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action."

9. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency

Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 7

SCC 417 observed that the general rule in regard to

impleadment of parties is that in a suit, being dominus litis, may

choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot

be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek

any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no

right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this

general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2)

CPC which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary

parties. It is further held that the said sub-rule is not about the

right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any

stage. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised suo

motu or on application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an

application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The Court

can add anyone as a plaintiff or defendant if it finds that he is a

necessary party or proper party.

10. Mere addition of the intervenor as a party will not

create an interest in the suit property and in considered view of

this Court the presence of the intervenor is necessary for

efficacious adjudication of this case and addition is also

necessary for avoidance of multiplicity of suit.

11. The Court can add anyone as a plaintiff or

defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party

for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit. Merely

because plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not

sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial

Court observed that plaintiff has conceded that Sudarshan Singh

had two daughters and it is well settled principles of law that

with respect to one subject-matter the determination of interest

of all the parties shall be done in one suit and in view of the said Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1303 of 2018 dt.05-09-2023

facts and considering the submission of the parties, the

impleadment petition of respondent No. 1 was allowed. The

learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction considering the

facts and circumstances of the case.

13. As discussed above, I do not find any illegality or

jurisdictional error in the impugned order to interfere with by

this Court in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

14. This Miscellaneous application is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) ashutosh/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                22.08.2023.
Uploading Date          05.09.2023.
Transmission Date