Nand Lal Nandwani vs Bhagwan Dass

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee, Sonepat, and its Administrator from demolishing their walls constructed on the land in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, the present respondent No. 1 Bhagwan Dass filed an application to be impleaded as a party on the ground that Municipal Committee was colluding with the plaintiffs and the suit had been filed with the intention to encroach upon its property. The learned trial Court allowed that application on the ground that to enable the Court to adjudicate effectively and completely upon the question involved in the suit he (i.e. Bhagwan Dass) he made a party. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.

From the arguments it appears that the plaintiffs have made certain construction on the site in dispute, which according to the plaintiffs, is their property while the defendantCommittee''s contention is that it is part of the land reserved for public place. Bhagwan Dass, who has been ordered to be made a party, has a house situated towards a corner of the disputed site across the street.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Bhagwan Dass has no interest in the suit property and, therefore, his presence is not at all necessary for effectively adjudicating the matters in dispute. He has placed reliance upon Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, 1968 P.L.R. 451, wherein it was remarked :

``Under subpara (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code as already observed, a person may be added as a party to a suit in two cases only i.e., when he ought to have been joined and is not so joined, i.e. when he is a necessary party, or, when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. In my opinion, there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit into which he seeks intrusion.''''

He also placed reliance upon State of Patiala v. Amar Nath and others, 1982 P.L.R. 479, wherein it was remarked :

``From a reading of the subrule and above observations it is evident that if a person is not a necessary party to the litigation or his presence is not necessary to adjudicate the case effectually and completely he shall not be added defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. The ground that he is likely to suffer a loss, if he is not made a defendant is no ground to implead him as such.''''

The learned counsel for Bhagwan Dass argued that procedural laws are made to subserve the ends of justice and not to thwart it. He argued that in the present case the site in dispute has been reserved by the Committee for a park and Bhagwan Dass''s house is situated closely and, therefore, he is interested in the result of the suit and thus can be treated as a person affected by the decision of the suit and, therefore, he is a necessary party. In support of his contention he has cited Amian and others v. Gram Panchayat Barota and others, 1978 PLJ 369, wherein it was remarked :

``There is no dispute with the proposition that under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, a third party can be impleaded in a pending suit when that party is a necessary party and without whom the suit cannot be decided. All that is required to be seen at this stage, and that too only prima facie, is as to whether the applicants are necessary parties to the litigation or not. As already noticed, in their application the applicants specially mentioned that they were residents of the street in regard to which the relief had been prayed for in the suit filed by the petitioners. In the absence of any rebuttal in this respect, it is reasonable to presume, at least prima facie, that any decree or order which might be passed in the suit would certainly affect their interest. In these circumstances, the applicants are necessary parties and their impleading as defendants in the suit is in no way unjustifiable.''''

The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon P.R. Nallathambi Goundan v. Vijaya Raghavan and others, AIR 1973 Madras 25, wherein it was remarked :

``Order 1, Rule 8, C.P. Code specially enables a party so represented, if he so desires, to come on record. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that a party who is bound by the result of a litigation, though not eo nomine a party to the litigation, shall be denied an opportunity to draw the attention of the Court to some step, which seeks to prejudice his interests behind his back. In all such cases, it is the plain duty of the court to implead the parties concerned either under Order 1, Rule 10 or in exercise of its undoubted, inherent power under Section 151, C.P. Code.''''

After consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the above rulings I have come to the opinion that Bhagwan Dass, though not a necessary party but can be said to be proper party. As noticed earlier, his house is said to be situated opposite to the site in dispute just across the street. According to Bhagwan Dass, the site in dispute has been reserved in the colony by the Municipal Committee as a park. Every person is interested in the environments of his house. According to Bhagwan Dass, the Municipal Committee is colluding with the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff will be successful in encroaching upon a part of the site reserved for a park. It is not a strict rule that a person cannot be added as a defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff. If a person is likely to be affected by the result of the suit, he becomes a proper party and should be allowed to be added.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any force in the present revision and dismiss the same. No order as to costs.