The High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition seeking to implead the petitioner as a party to a suit filed by a purchaser against the original vendor/tenant for possession. The Court held the application was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue separate proceedings.
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.
$~77
versus BINOD KUMAR BEGWANI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3073/2024
1
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.08.2024 14:19:38
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3073/2024
2
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.08.2024 14:19:38
“6. The plaintiff being dominus litis is required to establish his right over the property and the relationship of licensor/licensee/tenant for claiming the reliefs and it is always open to defendant to lead rebuttal evidence to contend otherwise. The question/validity of title which the plaintiff has acquired by way of the sale deeds executed by defendant might be defeasible by the applicant on the ground of being a co-owner or the property being joint family property but the same cannot be decided in the present proceedings. The impleadment of applicant would change the complexion of litigation and will raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this suit. The applicant is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel for applicant lay down the principles relevant for determining proper and necessary parties under order 1 rule 10, and in all fairness, the said judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. The presence of the applicant is thus, not necessary to enable the court to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. In view of the reasons cited above, the application stands dismissed and accordingly disposed off.”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3073/2024
3
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.08.2024 14:19:38
order passed by the learned Trial Court and to come to any different conclusion.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2024 st
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 3073/2024
4
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 2.08.2024 14:19:38
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an alleged co-owner can be impleaded as a proper or necessary party to a suit for eviction and possession filed by a purchaser against the seller-tenant.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Impugned Order dismissing the application for impleadment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JITENDER CHAWLA
BINOD KUMAR BEGWANI
MANOJ JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
