Dismissed¶65

Satpal Singh Juneja, v. Gurucharan Singh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2024WP227/3/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of party in appeal; Order 1 Rule 10 / Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; no limitation for impleadment application; appeal continuation of suit; dominus litis; necessary and proper party; intervener claiming agreement to sell impleaded as respondent No.10; reliance on Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417 paras 13-14; Article 227 writ; Civil Appeal No.39-A/2020, 1st Additional District Judge Ambikapur, Surguja; writ petition dismissed; WP227 No. 51 of 2023 delinked; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; dated 24/06/2024.

What did the court decide?

No limitation has been prescribed for an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, and the appeal is a continuation of the suit. ¶53

Satpal Singh Juneja, Vs Gurucharan Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate Court (1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur) committed a legal error in impleading respondent No.10 (Randeep Singh Chhabda) as a party in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2020 on his application claiming an agreement to sell with respondent No.1, notwithstanding the petitioners' contention that he has no interest or right in the suit property.

¶51

Court's answer

No limitation has been prescribed for an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, and the appeal is a continuation of the suit.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Drawing on Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, the Court is given discretion to add as a party any person who is found to be a necessary or proper party.

¶60

Key takeaways

Since the intervener (respondent No.10) demonstrated before the appellate Court that he had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.1, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order impleading him; consequently the writ petition fails.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP227 No. 3 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J., order dated 24/06/2024) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 9.12.2022 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2020, whereby the application of the intervener ( impleaded as respondent No.10, Randeep Singh Chhabda) claiming an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 for the suit property was allowed and he was impleaded as a party to the appeal. Held: (i) no limitation has been prescribed for an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the appeal is a continuation of the suit; (ii) relying on Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, the plaintiff being dominus litis is subject to Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, and the Court has discretion to add any person found to be a necessary or proper party; (iii) since the intervener demonstrated his agreement to sell with respondent No.1, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. WP227 No. 51 of 2023 was delinked from WP227 No. 3 of 2023.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 3 of 2023

¶5

Satpal Singh Juneja, S/o Late Jogender Singh Juneja Aged About 43 Years Caste Sikh, R/o Sadar Road Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶6

Inderpal Singh Juneja S/o Late Jogender Singh Juneja Aged About 35 Years Caste Sikh, R/o Sadar Road Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

Smt. Ravinder Kaur W/o Late Jogender Singh Juneja Aged About 65 Years Caste Sikh, R/o Sadar Road Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Gurucharan Singh S/o Late Mohar Singh Aged About 68 Years CasteSikh, R/o Mahamaya Road, (In Front Of Hotel Evloan) Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

Tanvir Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 45 Years Caste- Sikh, R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

Harprit Kaur W/o Harjinder Singh Chawla Aged About 48 Years CasteSikh, R/o Chawla Cloth Store, Station Road Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

Gurmit Kaur W/o Dhanbir Singh Kheda Aged About 47 Years CasteSikh, R/o Fauji Gali Vishrapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

Gurucharan Kaur W/o Surendar Singh Bhatla Aged About 43 Years Caste- Sikh, R/o Majdoor Thela Shop, Beside Mastana Hotel Ranjhi, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

¶15

Smit Kaur W/o Manindar Singh Saluja Aged About 35 Years CasteSikh, R/o Bharat Kids Agrasen Chowk, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Aarti Dubey D/o J.N. Pandey Aged About 41 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Kanabandh Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶17

Sandhya Tiwari W/o Deenanath Tiwari Aged About 35 Years CasteBramhan, R/o Takiya Road Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),

¶18

¶19

Chhattisgarh

¶20

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶21

10.Randeep Singh Chhabda S/o Surjit Singh Chhabda Aged About 41 Years R/o Behind Mayapur Police Station, Gurudwara Ward Ambikapur District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh..........(As Per Impugned Order, Learned Appellate Court Directed To Add As Res.)

¶22

---- Respondent

¶23

WP227 No. 51 of 2023

¶24

Gurucharan Singh Juneja S/o Late Mohar Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶25

---- Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

Satpal Singh Juneja S/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 45 Years R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶28

Inderpal Singh Juneja S/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 36 Years R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶29

Smt. Rabinder Kaur Wd/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 75 Years R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶30

Smt. Balbir Kaur W/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Chawla Cloth Store, Station Road Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶31

Tanvir Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Chawla Cloth Store, Station Road Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶32

Harpreet Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Chawla Cloth Store, Station Road Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶33

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Dhanbir Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Faujigali, Bishrampur, Police Station And Tahsil Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶34

¶35

Gurucharan Kaur W/o Surender Singh Bhatla Aged About 47 Years R/o Majdoor Thela Shop, Near Mastana Hotel, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

¶36

Smt. Smit Kaur W/o Maninder Kaur Saluja Aged About 36 Years R/o Bharat Kids, Agresan Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶37

10.Smt. Aarti Dubey D/o Shri J. N. Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Kenabandh, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶38

11.Smt. Sandhya Tiwari W/o Shri Dinanath Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o Takiya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶39

12.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶40

---- Respondent

¶41

For Petitioners : Shri MPS Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Vishal Sahu, appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶42

For Respondents 3, 4, 5 & 6 : Shri Wasim Miyan, Advocate. For Respondent No.9 : Shri Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer.

¶43

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶44

Order On Board

¶45

24/06/2024 :

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, WP227 No. 51 of 2023 be delinked from WP227 No.03/2023.

¶47

WP227 No. 3 of 2023

¶48

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.12.2022 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2020 whereby the application preferred by the

¶49

¶50

intervener/respondent No.10 claiming that for the suit property, he has entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.1, has been allowed by the appellate Court for impleadment as party in Appeal.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.10 is having no interest or right in the suit property, so, the appellate Court has wrongly impleaded him in the memo of appeal and while allowing the application, the appellate Court has committed legal error. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the petition and dismiss the application filed by respondent No.10.

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order.

¶53

It is well settled that no limitation has been prescribed for an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the appeal is continuation of the suit.

¶54

In the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others {(2010) 7 SCC 417}, it was held that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. But the general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary party. The relevant paras-13 & 14 of the said judgment read thus:-

¶55

“ 13 . The general rule in regard to impleadment of

¶56

¶57

parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons 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) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

¶58

“10. (2) 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 effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

¶59

14 . The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.”

¶60

In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, it is explicit that the Court is given discretion to add as a party any person who is found to be a necessary or proper party.

¶61