Single judge dismissed three civil revisions challenging the rejection of an application to implead a party in a Small Causes suit. The court held that allowing the impleadment would convert the suit into a title dispute, citing high probability of collusion.
Three civil revisions dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 63 of 2016
Chandraprabha Garg …. Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Dutt & Another …. Respondents Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondents. With Civil Revision No. 64 of 2016 Chandraprabha Garg …. Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Dutt & Another …. Respondents Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
With
Civil Revision No. 62 of 2016 Chandraprabha Garg …. Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Dutt & Another …. Respondents Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
These civil revisions are akin in nature on the point of legal issue which is to be determined herein, so, are being taken up together by this common verdict.
By means of this revision, titled above, the impugned order dated 05.02.2016 has been challenged by Smt. Chandraprabha Garg whereby her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the Judge Small Causes Court.
2
It transpires that a plot of land was purchased on 22.7.1970 in the joint name of Ms. Kiran Dutt (unmarried daughter aged about 22-23 years) and Smt. Jaswanti Devi (the mother of that girl).
It has been argued by the learned counsel of Smt. Kiran Dutt that since Kiran Dutt was in the government job at that time hence, she purchased this plot of land by her own income.
The revisionist herein has submitted that two Wills were executed pertaining to such property whereon the building structure had been erected by that time. Smt. Jaswanti Devi and Smt. Kiran Dutt executed these Wills in favour of Smt. Chandraprabha Garg.
In order to dispel any apprehension, it has been alleged that Smt. Jaswanti Devi also executed a registered gift deed on 27.01.2014 pertaining to half of the portion owned by her on the whole of the property. However, agitating the genuineness of such gift deed, the original suit no. 225/2014 has been initiated by Smt. Kiran Dutt against her own sister Smt. Chandraprabha Garg seeking the cancellation of such sale deed and such suit is pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction.
In this backdrop, a JSCC suit no. 11/2014 was initiated sometime in April, 2014 by Smt. Kiran Dutt against three different tenants who are the proforma respondent no. 2 in each of the revisions. After serving the notice under section 106 of T.P. Act on 11.3.2014 to the respective tenants, all the tenants presented their written statements, wherein it was pleaded that they took the property on lease in November, 2012 from Smt. Chandraprabha.
After filing such pleadings in November, 2014 by all of the tenants, Smt. Chandraprabha moved an application in April, 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC which has been rejected by the impugned order.
3
I think if such an application of Smt. Chandraprabha is allowed and she is permitted to implead in this short JSCC matter then the whole litigation shall be converted into suit of the title between Smt. Kiran Dutt and Smt. Chandraprabha which cannot be permitted.
So, I think her application has rightly been rejected because there is every probability that such an application has been moved by Smt. Chandraprabha with collusion of the tenant.
All these revisions have no force and are hereby dismissed.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 10.7.2017
Pooja
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to implead a party in a Small Causes suit should be allowed when the application may convert the matter into a title dispute.
Whether the High Court can find that an application was movrd with collusion and dismiss it without adjudicating substantive rights.
Whether a Civil Revision disposing of a rejection impleadment application is within the court's jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandraprabha Garg
Smt. Kiran Dutt
Servesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
