In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the trial court's order conditionally allowing the impleadment of necessary parties on payment of costs. The court held that the lower court rightly exercised its discretion under Order I Rule 10 CPC despite delay.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2947 OF 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking to assail the order dated 20.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.187 of 2011 in O.S.No.413 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in conditionally allowing the said petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, seeking to implead the proposed respondents i.e., defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the suit.
The facts of the case, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that the when suit mentioned above is at the stage of defendant side evidence, the first defendant filed the present application to implead the proposed respondents i.e., defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the suit. The respondents’ counsel concedes to the fact that the proposed respondents are necessary and proper parties but he harps on the delay aspect. The Court below observed that though the petition is filed at a belated stage but on the sole count that the petitioner’s request cannot be rejected if he is otherwise entitled to and allowed the said petition. As there was delay, the Court below imposed costs of Rs.500/- payable to the respondents and in default of payment of costs, ordered for dismissal of the petition.
Order I Rule 10 CPC reads as under.
Suit in name of wrong plaintiff –
10 (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any 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.
(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.
(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877) Section 22, the proceedings as against
any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.
On a perusal of the above provision, it is seen that it is the discretion of the Court to implead the parties. The impleadment of the parties has to be considered liberally, so as to adjudicate and narrow down the litigation and decide the issues involved in the matter. The learned Judge rightly exercised his discretion in allowing the said petition and also ordering payment of costs of Rs.500/- and there is no reason to interfere with the said order of the Court below.
Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J)
25th November 2011 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in discretionally allowing the conditional impleadment of necessary parties after delay.
Whether the imposition of costs for delay without dismissing the application was justified.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner-Plaintiff
Defendant Nos.13 and 14
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
