Sohan Lal vs Lekh Ram & Others.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The plaintiff/petitioner herein, instituted a suit for rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, visÂa vis, the suit Khasra Numbers,

besides, also prayed for rendition, of, a decree, for mandatory injunction, visÂaÂvis, the suit Khasra Numbers. The defendants/respondents herein, in,

their writtenÂ​ statement contended, that the suit land is joint interÂ​se the plaintiff, and, the defendants. They also raised an objection qua the suit being

bad for nonÂjoinder, of, necessary parties, in as much as, as one of the brothers’ of the defendants, who, also alongwith the parties at contest,

though hence jointly owning the undivided suit property his rather, remaining unimpleaded, despite, his being both a proper, and, a necessary party, in

the lis.

Even though the aforesaid objection, devolving, upon the suit, hence being bad for nonÂjoinder, of, necessary parties, was taken at the earliest, yet,

the plaintiff belatedly therefrom, instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking therein a relief, of, adding in the

array of defendants’, the LRs of deceased Bagshi Ram, the brother of the defendants, who alongwith them, and, the plaintiff, is, espoused to be

jointly owning the suit property, (i) thereupon, he was hence a necessary party, for effectively clinching, the entire gamut of the controversy engaging

the parties at contest (ii) more importantly, for also ensuring rendition, of, an effective finding upon the issue appertaining to suit being bad, for nonÂ‐

joinder, of necessary parties.

Even though the aforesaid endeavor was belated, yet, the mere belated institution, of the aforesaid application, was, not sufficient, to, drive the

learned trial Court, to, hence dismiss the application, (a) as, the mandate of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has a binding effect, and, also covers all stages of

litigation, (b) especially when for covering, the menace of multiplicity of litigation, and, for smothering, the entire gamut, of, the controversy engaging

the parties at lis, besides visÂaÂvis the suit khasra Numbers, and, also for ensuring rendition of, a binding and effective decree, upon, all the litigants

concerned (c) thereupon hence the addition of the aforesaid in the array of defendants, is, both just and necessary.

The aforesaid trite principle, seems to be omitted, from, being borne in mind, by the learned trial Court, rather,the learned trial Court has misdirected

itself and failingly concentrated, upon, the mere factum, of the application aforesaid, being instituted at an belated stage. Since the addition of the

aforesaid in the array of the defendants, is, necessary, for enabling the learned trial Court, to, pronounce an effective, decision upon the issue

appertaining, to the suit being bad for nonÂjoinder of necessary parties, also when hence would cure the aforesaid initial lapses, if any, as made by the

plaintiff, thereupon an affirmative order, was, enjoined to be recorded thereon.

In view of the above, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly allowed. The learned trial Court concerned, is, directed to decide the

Civil Suit within a period of six months. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.