Mahila Munni vs Ramhet

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order passed by Civil Judge Class I, Pohri in case no. 4-A/2013 on 22.07.2014, by which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the respondent no. 3 and 4 herein has been moved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land filed by the petitioner, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 was preferred by the respondent no. 3 and 4 for impleadment in the suit as parties. The Court below while passing the order and allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has found that in the revenue records of 1995-96 to 1999-2000, name of respondent no. 3 and 4 is recorded as Qabzedar (person in possession) and therefore the Court below came to a conclusion that respondent no. 3 and 4 have some interest involved in the suit property, thereby coming to a finding that the respondents no. 3 and 4 are necessary parties and thus deserve to be impleaded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff opposing the impugned order has contended that the plaintiff being the dominus-litus is the sole person to decide, whom to implead and not to implead in a suit filed and in that respect cannot be dictated by respondent no. 3 and 4, who are rank outsiders.

Reliance is placed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the Single Bench decision of this Court in case of Akshay Kumar Jain Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain reported in 1992 (Vol. 1) MPWN 309 and the Apex Court decision in case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, to contend interalia that the impugned order is non-speaking.

A bare perusal of the order 1 Rule 10 CPC reflects that trial Court has wide powers to join in as plaintiff/defendant persons before the Court which is necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit. The said provision does not fetter on the said power to implead a person to be necessary. This provision thus does not bar impleading of a person who may only be a proper party, but may not be necessary party.

The impleadment of the respondent no. 3 and 4 in the suit does not appear to be causing any prejudice to the plaintiff/petitioner herein, as it neither prejudices the claim of the petitioner nor leads to a triangular fight on the question of ownership of the suit property.

The plaintiff being the dominus-litus and having the right to implead or not to implead is a settled principle of law, which is not disputed. However, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC gives wide powers to the Court to implead any person as party who may assist the Court to come to a rightful conclusion in the interest of justice and therefore objection of the petitioner/plaintiff are in this regard is of no avail.

The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (Supra) is not applicable in the present case since the impugned order appears to be reasonably speaking. It not only discloses the mind of the trial Court, but also afford reasonable opportunity to respondent to have their say. Moreover, the single Bench decision in the case of Akshay Kumar (Supra) is also of no avail, since in that case the factual matrix discloses possibility of a triangular fight due to allowing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which is not the case herein.

Accordingly, scope of Article 227 involving supervisory jurisdiction being limited and in absence of any transgression of jurisdictional limits set by law by the trial Court, this petition deserves to be and is therefore rejected sans cost.