Gokal Chand and others vs Puran and others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1606 of 1977 and eight other connected petitions--Civil Revision Nos. 1956 to 1963 of 1977, they involve common questions of law and fact.

The plaintiffs through this petition u/s 115 of the CPC (hereinafter called the Code) have challenged the order of the learned Sub Judge, Second Class, Palwal, dated September 15, 1977, whereby the application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of respondents Nos. 7 to 9 was allowed and they were ordered to be impleaded as defendants.

The suit giving rise to this petition was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land in dispute with the allegations that Gazi was the tenant of the suit land on whose death the land devolved on them. The ownership rights were alleged to have been acquired by the plaintiffs by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953. Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 who had also filed a separate suit claiming inheritance of the said Gazi moved an application under Order 1, I Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as party in the suit which was I allowed by the impugned order.

Mr. Gokal Chand Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the impugned order on the grounds that no person can be ordered to be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff he being dominus litis, and that no relief having been claimed against the said respondents, they were neither proper nor a necessary party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on three decisions of this Court in Manmohan Singh v. Shri Sat Narain (1971) 73 P.L.R. 525, Padam Kumar Jain v. Digamber Jain Sabha 1969 Cur. L.J. 1041, and Civil Revision No. 1490 of 1976 Hari Ram v. Inder C.R. 1490 of 1976 decided on April 7, 1977. Apart from laying down the general principles, none of these decisions is of any help to the petitioners as all of them were rendered on their own facts and in none of them was it laid down as principle of law that a person whom the plaintiff does not want to be so impleaded or against whom no relief is claimed cannot be ordered to be impleaded as a party by the Court.

The question of addition of a party under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of judicial discretion which is to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is also well-settled that a person can be impleaded as a party in a suit under the said provisions to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings In the present case, the plaintiffs claimed ownership rights in the land in dispute as heirs of the said Gazi was disputed by respondents Nos. 7 to 9 who instead claimed to have inherited the said property and had even instituted a separate suit for that purpose. The question involved in the suit essentially is of the inheritance of Gazi and for its effectual and complete adjudication it would be proper, even if it may not be necessary, to implead any person who comes forward to oppose the claim of the plaintiffs and instead claim himself to be the heir. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others, , wherein it was held that in a suit relating to property, a person who has direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation can be added as a party. In the said Supreme Court case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the defendant and was as such entitled to receive from him Kharch-e Pandanat certain rate. The defendant in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff but at that stage Anwar Begum and her son claiming themselves to be the wife and son of the defendant filed an application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code on the ground that they were interested in denying the marriage of the plaintiff and her rights and status. Their application was allowed by the trial Court and the revision petition against that order was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal by special leave in the Supreme Court which was also dismissed with the observation that the Courts below did not exceed their powers in directing addition of the said persons as defendants nor could it be said that the exercise of the discretion was not sound. In view of this decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, there is no scope on the facts of the present case to hold either that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the addition of the said respondents Nos. 7 to 9 as defendants or that the exercise of the discretion was not sound.

Consequently, no case has been made out to warrant interference with the discretionary order of the trial Court and these petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.