AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Lamare, J.—I have heard Mr. B.K. Das, sr. advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Roy, sr. advocate assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, advocate for the Respondents.
These two civil revision petitions are taken up together as the same has arisen out of the order dated 30.6.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 220/2000.
The points that arise to be decided are same relating to the impleading of the Petitioners in both the civil revision petitions in the said title suit. For the above reasons, these two civil revisions are disposed of by this common judgment.
The case in brief is that, the Respondents 1 and 2 instituted in Title Suit No. 220/2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ka Mr. up at Guwahati for declaration of right and title over the suit property, for declaration that the lease deed dated 12.2.1998 is illegal and void, for the recovery of khas possession of the suit land and other relief. At the initial stage of the suit, the Petitioners herein filed petition before the trial Court under Order I Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 CPC praying for allowing them to be impleaded as Defendants as they were the signatories of the said alleged lease deed dated 12.2.1998. Shri Deepak Ranjan Guha, Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 219/2001 is the attorney of Respondent No. 5 and Shri Sridhar Adhikari and Shri Trailekyeswar Bhuyan, Petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No. 220/2001 are the witnesses to the said lease deed and therefore claimed that they are necessary and proper party to be impleaded to the said title suit.
The main ground on which the Petitioners claimed to be impleaded as parties in the said title suit is that there were some derogatory remarks against them in the plaint, particularly when it was alleged that the said alleged lease deed dated 12.2.98 was purported to have been executed by false representation and the same was registered by fraudulent means.
The Respondents 1 and 2, Plaintiffs in the said title suit also have filed objection against the said petitions of the Petitioners objecting to the impleadment of the Petitioners as Defendants in the suit. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order dated 30.6.2001 rejecting the petitions of the Petitioners for impleadment as Defendants to the suit.
Admittedly, the Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 219/2001 is the attorney and the Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 220/2001 are the witnesses to the alleged lease deed. The point to be considered therefore is whether by the allegations made in para 9 of the plaint the Petitioners have become necessary or proper parties to be impleaded as Defendants. Para 9 of the plaint read as follows:
That the Defendant No. 1 by fraudulent means prepared the aforesaid lease deed dated 12.2.98 surreptitiously and got it registered by false representation before the Sub-Registrar, Guwahati. The purported signature of the proforma Defendant No. 4 was not his signature. As such, the Defendant No. 1 committed fraud in the following manner:
A) Neither the proforma Defendant No. 4 nor the proforma Defendant No. 5 executed the aforesaid lease deed dated 12.2.98. The Defendant No. 1 by false representation got the lease deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Guwahati.
B) The signature appearing in the said document of proforma Defendant No. 4 were forged and fabricated; and C) The Defendant No. 1 managed to get its name entered in the G.M.C. assessment registry as assesses for the holdings No. 27 & 27A by misrepresentation of facts, faudulently and dishonestly. The Plaintiffs state that the proforma Defendant No. 4 has been paying the G.M.C. taxes for holdings No. 27 & 27A for all these years.
A few of the G.M.C. receipts are enclosed hereto and marked as Plaintiffs document No. 10 series.
D) The Defendant No. 1 managed to suppress the notice if any by fraudulent means.
All these frauds were committed by the Defendant No. 1 for wrongful gain.
For proper appreciation of the provisions of law involved in the case, Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is reproduced below:
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.
A bare perusal of the above provision of law it shows that the Court at its discretion may strike out or add parties as Plaintiff or Defendant. Plaintiff or Defendant may be added as party where his presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
In the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, the Apex Court in para 6 of the judgment had interpreted the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC which read as follows:
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the Plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order I Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
In para 14 of the same judgment, the Apex Court has also held as follows:
It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a Defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action.
The above law laid down by the Apex Court was also followed in the case o New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumkum Mittal and Others,
In the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. District Judge, Udhampur and Others, the Apex Court had held that, the requisitioning authority is a person interested since it is interested in the fixation of the proper and just market value or compensation of the land acquired on its behalf as well as to see that the true extent of the land is acquired and is free from encumbrances. The Apex Court, therefore, held that the requisitioning authority, Appellant in that case is a proper and necessary party under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure
In the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru, the Apex Court had held that, the suit for specific performance of contract of immovable property, the Respondent who is not a party to the contract sought to be impleaded as party Defendant on the ground that the Respondent had acquired equal interest as co-owner, the Respondent is not entitled to be joined as Defendant and need not be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure
In the case of M/s. Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and others, it was held that, necessary party is one without whose presence no effective and complete adjudication of the dispute could be made and no relief granted. The landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the building before the demolition. His right title and interest in the property demised to the tenant or licensee would be in jeopardy and therefore, the landlord is a proper party even though no relief is sought against him.
In the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, the Apex Court held that:
Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity or proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.
In the said case, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 who purchased the ancestral property during the pendency of a suit were held to be necessary and proper to the dispute.
Coming back to the case in hand, it is not disputed that the Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 219/2001, Shri Deepak Ranjan Guha is the power of attorney agent and the Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 220/2001 Shri Sridhar Adhikari and Shri Trailekyeswar Bhuyan are the witnesses to the alleged lease deed. According to their petition under Order I Rule 10(A) read with Section 51 CPC filed by them before the trial Court, their main plea for impleading them as party in the suit is that some remarks were made against them in para 9 of the plaint. The question of which makes a person to be entitled to be impleaded in a suit is that he should be either a necessary or proper party. A person must also be directly or legally interested in the subject matter of dispute and that any decision in the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally by curtailing his legal rights. The Petitioners being only the power of attorney agent and witnesses to the alleged lease deed are neither necessary party nor proper party and there is no question of their right being affected even if the suit is decided in their absence. It is also not the case that the suit cannot be decided effectually and completely unless the Petitioners are added as party.
Considering all the above aspect of the matter and the discussions and observations made above, I am of the considered view that both the instant petitions have no merit and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.