This High Court dismissed an application under Article 227 seeking quashing of a Single Judge's order allowing an intervening party to be added under CPC Order 1 Rule 10(2). The Court found the Munsif's decision to be based on reason and fair play.
Application dismissed, order dated 22.09.2018 of learned Munsif upheld.
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 MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.206 of 2019
======================================================
Tej Narayan Singh Son of Late Jagat Narain Singh Resident of villageSakaraicha, P.S- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna. At present at- MohallaPanchseel Nagar, Bishnu Lane, P.O-Digha, P.S- Danapur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Both are resident of Village- Kusumpura Colony, P.O. Danapur, P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-04-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the learned Munsif, Danapur in Title Suit No. 121 of 2017 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the respondent no.3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short C.P.C.).
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2019 dt.11-04-2019 2/6
"Rule 10(2). Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2019 dt.11-04-2019 3/6
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 effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
court may, at any stage of the proceedings 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 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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2019 dt.11-04-2019 4/6
necessary or proper party.
"The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, the 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 that general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC by which the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party."
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2019 dt.11-04-2019 5/6
"Perused the suit record. On perusal of documents filed by petitioner (intervenor), I find that the property land in question has been purchased by intervenor by sale deed which requires to be scrutinized through trial as documents filed by the petitioner (Intervenor) cast cloud over the claim of plaintiff and Prima facie documents filed by petitioner shows that there is directly or indirectly interest of petitioner over the land in question. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the petitioner filed u/o 1 Rule 10(2) is allowed to be added defendant. Accordingly, intervenor defendant is directed to file his written statement...."
learned Munsif while allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. by the petitioner-intervenor would make it clear that while exercising its judicial discretion, the learned Munsif has acted according to the reason and fair play and not according to the whims and caprice. The order impugned is neither without jurisdiction
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2019 dt.11-04-2019 6/6
nor perverse. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the same in exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Md. S/SKSuman.
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 18.04.2019 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Munsif's order allowing the addition of an intervening party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC warrants interference under Article 227.
Whether the Munsif acted within judicial discretion and not caprice while allowing the addition of a party necessary to settle questions in the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Tej Narayan Singh
Ashok Patel
Dharmendra Patel
Kusumpuram Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee Ltd. Patna
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
