Maan Singh and another vs Gambheer Singh and others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A very peculiar argument which has been canvassed by the petitioners while giving challenge to the orders, by virtue of which, the impleadment

application filed by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed by invocation of the provisions, which are to be conjointly read with Order 22 Rule 10 of

the CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, wherein, under the strength of the sale deed, the respondent No. 2 has sought herself to be impleaded as a

party to the proceedings, initiated by way of Suit No. 94 of 2014, Gambheer Singh Vs. Maan Singh and others.

The respondent No. 2, during the course of the proceedings of the Suit, had filed an application, being paper No. 36-A on 21st November, 2016,

wherein, she has prayed for that since being the purchaser of the property by virtue of the sale date dated 19.10.2015 executed in her favour, she has

stepped into the shoes and, hence, by an implication of Order 22 Rule 10, she becomes a necessary party to be impleaded as a party defendant to the

Suit. The application, thus, filed had been allowed by the Court by the order dated 9th October, 2017 and on a challenge being given in a Misc. Appeal

No. 19 of 2017, the said order has been affirmed.

One aspect which the petitioner do not dispute is that the applicant is a purchaser, by virtue of the sale deed dated 19th October, 2015, it is also not

disputed that as a consequence of the execution of the sale deed, she would be stepping into the shoes of the purchaser as a consequence of divesting

of all rights in relation to the subject matter of the sale deed.

A very technical argument which has been raised by the petitioner is that the application, as submitted by the respondent No. 2, while invoking Order

22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, the applicant has not prayed for a simultaneous amendment in the pleading by invoking Order 6

Rule 17, and hence, in the absence of the prayer being sought for making an amendment, the impleadment application in itself by implication of Order

22 Rule 10 of the CPC could not have been allowed.

Apparently, this argument may be looking sound enough to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but, this Court is carving

out a distinction in the instant case because the application itself was filed under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of

the CPC, which grants inherent power to the Court to do an act to meet the ends of justice. Apart from that, it is not disputed that the application was

under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC reads as under :-

“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. â€" (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 and other person to be

substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.â€​

A right of adding a party has been given to the Court and when a party is added by Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the

power to add a party as a consequence of allowing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 is being given to the Court itself, this Court is of the view that

no independent application under Order 6 Rule 17 required which could be attracted in relation to adding a pleading. Pleading would mean a pleading

which would have an effect on the subject matter of the suit which is sought to be adjudicated, array of parties or change of its configuration because

of the subsequent developments by invoking Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10 would not amount to be an amendment in pleadings. It is only a

change in the cost title which is to be brought in by the Court’s prerogative and its power vested under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and this has to

be read with in consonance with Section 151 of the CPC.

Consequently, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.