Amarjeet Singh vs Santnam Kaur And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Present civil revision has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Small Cause Case No. 10 of 2017 "Smt. Satnam Kuar Vs. Kamal Arora", whereby trial court has rejected the impleadment application filed by the revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.

Facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the first respondent filed the aforesaid suit against second respondent for ejectment and recovery of rent from second respondent. During the pendency of the said case, the revisionist-Amarjeet Singh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for impleading himself as the plaintiff no.2 in the suit on the ground that the he has a right in the property in suit.

The court below did not find favour with the revisionist and dismissed the application vide order dated 19.04.2019. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has approached this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is contended that that Late Harnam Singh was the owner of the property in suit. He passed away on 20.11.1982. Late Harnam Singh executed a registered Will during his lifetime on 02.11.1979 in favour of his wife Jasbir Kaur. He had executed the Will in favour of his wife Smt. Jabsir Kaur with life interest and that subsequently after her death, the property would go to the father of the revisionist equally, but Smt. Jasbir Kaur executed a gift deed in favour of first respondent during her life time. The first respondent has also instituted a suit for cancellation of Will dated 02.11.1979.

It is also contended that respondent no.1 Smt. Satnam Kaur, daughter of late Harnam Singh, is claiming her right over the property in view of the gift deed executed by her mother in her favour and on the strength of gift deed she has instituted the said suit against second respondent claiming herself to be a landlady and respondent no.2 as her tenant.

7 Revisionist claiming the right over the property in suit in view of the fact that late Harnam Singh executed a Will on 02.11.1979 in favour of Smt. Jasbir Kaur with limited life interest was given to her and after death of Jasbir Kaur, father of the revisionist, Ajab Singh become the owner of the property in suit, therefore, the revisionist has a right and title over the property in question. The second respondent has filed written statement in the said suit and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with first respondent.

It is contended that when the revisionist came to know that first respondent has instituted a suit for recovery of rent and mesne profit against second respondent the impleadment application has been filed by the revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.

On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Singh learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that this is a case of recovery of rent and ejectment filed by the landlady against her tenant. In a suit for ejectment the question of land lordship and tenant is to be decided and third party has got no right to be impleaded as party in the suit. He would further submit that it is not a case based on title, therefore, the revisionist is neither necessary nor appropriate party to the suit and his presence is not necessary to adjudicate the case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Before further discussion, it is apt to reproduce Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., which reads as under:

"Court may strike out or add parties.- (2) The Court may at any stage of the 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 effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel for the revisionist would submit that the trial court vide order dated 19.4.2019 has rejected the impleadment application of the revisionist on the ground that the rights of the revisionist/applicant are not being effected as the first respondent Smt. Satnam Kaur has already filed a suit for cancellation of Will dated 02.11.1979. He would further submit that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. are clear that power could have been exercised by the Court not only in respect of necessary party but to implead any party whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settled all questions involved in the suit.

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial court has not recorded any prima facie satisfaction on the undisputed fact that Harnam Singh was the owner of the property in suit. He has executed a will in favour of his wife Jasbir Kuar, though she has gifted the property in favour of first respondent, the facts remains, that the first respondent filed suit for cancellation of the Will, unless the Will dated 02.11.1979 is cancelled by the Competent Court and also having considered the fact that revisionist is the grand son of Late Harnam Singh, some rights have accrued in favour of the revisionist.

The trial court has lost sight of the fact that the Will was executed by Harnam Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Jasbir Kaur with limited rights and on her the property would vested in the son of late Harnam Singh equally. Thus this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed illegality in dismissing the impleadment application. It appears that the trial court did not consider the case of the revisionist in an appropriate manner and rejected the application of third party without having considered the fact that the revisionist is proper and necessary party to the suit. More particularly, when the third party has prayed that he may be impleaded as co-plaintiff in the suit, in that contingency, the application filed by the revisionist ought to have been allowed.

It is true that plaintiff is a dominus litis, he has a right to choose his opponent but the fact remains that the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. empowers the Court to implead a party on an application on suo moto, if the court finds that the persons 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. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submissions of Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the view that revisionist is necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of the suit. The impugned order is liable to be quashed. The impugned order is hereby quashed.

The civil revision is allowed. Accordingly, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. being paper no. 32C is hereby allowed. Plaintiff is directed to implead the revisionist as plaintiff no.2 or defendant in the suit.

However, it is made clear that court below may proceed with the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

No order as to costs.