Maya Devi Vs District Judge Distt. Sultanpur and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37290

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2396 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Maya Devi

¶5

Respondent :- District Judge Distt. Sultanpur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Tripathi,Shakti Krishna Chaube

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Ankush Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ankush Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveators respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

In the light of proposed order, notice to respondent no. 5 is dispensed with.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running a shop at House No. 191, 192, 193, 194 in an area of 16x10.5ft. The new number of the above house is 188/6 plot no. 6/3, situated at Chavni Sadar, Ward No. 20, Parkisganj Galla Mandi Sahar, Pargana - Miranpur, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Sultanpur. The said shop was taken on rent from respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the same till he was being required to be illegally evicted from the said property. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the petitioner filed a suit for temporary injunction restraining respondent nos. 3 and 4 from dispossessing him from the suit property.

¶11

It is stated that even prior to institution of the aforesaid suit the disputed property had been sold by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in favour of respondent no. 5 and accordingly, respondent no. 5 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming himself to be owner of the disputed property with prayer to be made defendant in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner filed objections in the aforesaid application, stating that the said sale deed was null and void and in any case the suit was for restraining respondent nos. 3 and 4 and consequently opposed the said application.

¶12

The trial Court by means of order dated 25.10.2023, duly considered the rival contentions and was of the view that there is no doubt that the disputed property has been sold by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in favour of respondent no. 5 and

¶13

consequently, once sale deed is on record, it demonstrates and confirms the fact that respondent no. 5 was necessary party to the suit proceedings and accordingly, allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and directed the plaintiff to make respondent no. 5 as defendant in the said suit.

¶14

Being aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred revision before the District Judge, Sultanpur. The District Judge by means of order dated 24.04.2024, dismissed the said revision affirming order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the trial Court. The petitioner has assailed both the aforesaid orders in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders that she is dominus litus , in the aforesaid circumstances the suit proceedings have been initiated by her where injunction was sought only against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and without there being any consent from respondent no. 5, the Court allowed impleadment of respondent no. 5 on the application moved by respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶16

The underlying principle regarding Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that thee 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 in order to put an end to all the controversy of litigation. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 , in the following terms :-

¶17

" 7. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. "

¶18

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the present case,

¶19

it is noticed that the claim made by the petitioner in the plaint it was specifically averred that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are owners of the suit property and they were trying to illegally dispossess him and on the basis of aforesaid pleadings the suit was preferred. Once it came on record by means of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that infact respondent no. 5 had purchased the disputed property from respondent nos. 3 and 4, hence he was owner of the said suit property, then there is no doubt that any order passed in the suit proceedings would directly effect respondent no. 5 and accordingly he was necessary party to the said suit.

¶20

Once both the Courts below have come to conclusion that respondent no. 5 was necessary party then there is no doubt that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that in any case once respondent no. 5 has demonstrated that he is owner of the suit property then he would be necessary party in the said suit proceedings.

¶21

In view of above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court as well as revisional Court. Once respondent no. 5 has brought on record the sale deed indicating that he is owner of the disputed property, then he being necessary party in the suit proceedings, the trial Court was within its competence to have allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶23

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 A. Verma

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maya Devi v. District Judge Distt. Sultanpur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. District Judge Distt. Sultanpur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Prity Pandey Vs Addl. Principal Judge,Court No. 2, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Krishna Devi and Another Vs Additional Civil Judge Junior Division / F.T.C. Gonda and 8 Others

Ghanshyam and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration Ii), Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Salig Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Sakir Ali Vs Board or Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Phoola Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others