The high court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of a proposed defendant as a necessary party in a civil suit for declaration and injunction regarding ancestral property, finding no infirmity in the order.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 4
2024:CGHC:31911
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 723 of 2024
Rajiv Gupta S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o. House No. 12/452 (451-453), Ward No. 39, Nayapara, Bartan Line, Raipur, Tehsil-Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Smt. Meena Gupta W/o. Late Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, D/o. Shri Keval Chand Aged About 65 Years C/o. House Of Late Shri Ravi Kashyap, Near Old Police Station, In Front Of Hanuman Mandir, Lalganj, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.08.23 10:59:56 +0530
2 - Namita Rajesh Dhanore W/o. Rajesh Dhanore Aged About 52 Years R/o. Venkoba Mule Road, Near Chinteshwar Mandir, Bairagipura, Bhandewadi, Nagpur (Respondent/proposed Defendant)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : None.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board
22.08.2024
2 / 4
proposed defendant, namely, Namita Rajesh Dhanore, under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for arraying her as a party in the suit was allowed.
3 / 4
against whom he wishes to litigate, however, this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:-
“13. 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. 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 I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:
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."
4 / 4
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 question 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.”
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Ajay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly allowed the application for impleadment of a proposed party as a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd.Explained¶22
Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 417 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv Gupta S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta
Smt. Meena Gupta W/o. Late Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Namita Rajesh Dhanore W/o. Rajesh Dhanore
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
