This writ petition challenged the lower court's rejection of an application to implead the petitioner as a defendant in a property suit. The High Court held that impleadment requires the presence of a person to determine issues between existing parties and dismissed the application.
The application seeking impleadment in the suit 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14516 of 2013
=========================================================== Sadhu Sharan Singh Son Of Late Ram Ekwal Singh Residing At Village Ahirpurba, P.S. Ara Nagar, P.O. Ara, District Bhojpur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kr Choubey, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-12-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
The legal sustainability of the impugned order by which
the learned court below has turned down the prayer of the petitioner for his impleadment in the suit as defendant has been questioned in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The materials on record demonstrate that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the State of Bihar and other persons. From the perusal of the copy of the plaint which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this application, it transpires that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14516 of 2013 dt.06-12-2016 2
defendant no. 1 is the State of Bihar and defendant no. 2 is Jit Lal Rai. The reason for filing the suit has been mentioned in the plaint that the recent survey khatiyan has been wrongly prepared in the name of the defendants whereas the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The relief has been prayed for declaration of title and further for declaration that the entry in the recent survey khatiyan in the names of the defendants with regard to the suit property is wrong. The prayer for injunction has also been made against the defendants. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit the present petitioner filed an application praying for his addition as defendant in the suit on the ground that he has got right, title and interest in the suit property as he was the elder brother of the plaintiff. The learned court below by the impugned order has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.
After considering the submissions and materials on record including the impugned order, it is pellucid that the plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the petitioner and the only relief which has been prayed is against the two defendants in the suit on the ground that the recent survey khatiyan with regard to the suit property has been wrongly prepared. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decree which may be passed in the suit would bind the right, title and interest of the present petitioner but this submission could not be substantiated by any principle or
Patna High Court CWJC No.14516 of 2013 dt.06-12-2016 3
precedent. This court thus has not been persuaded to conclude that the right title and interest which the petitioner might have in the suit property would be affected in any manner by the decree to be passed in the suit.
The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. is also clear on this aspect where the prayer for addition of only such a person in the suit has been envisaged whose presence before the court is necessary for determination of the issues arising between the parties. The jurisdiction under the said provision cannot be invoked by a person for establishing his own right, title and interest and on an independent cause of action.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J)
Devendra/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the order rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment as a defendant in the suit.
Whether the presence of the petitioner before the court is necessary for the determination of issues between the existing parties.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sadhu Sharan Singh
The State Of Bihar Through District Collector Bhojpur
Sant Bilash Singh
Jit Lal Rai @ Shit Lal Rai
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
