Vinay Mittar vs Kanta Bhagat and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—The defendants in the trial Court have filed the present revision petition and it has been directed against the order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar, who allowed the application of Smt. Jagjit Kaur under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C., and it was ordered that she be made a party as a plaintiff in suit No. 201 of 1991, titled Kanta Bhagat and Ors. v. Randhir Singh and Ors.

The case set up by Smt. Jagjit Kaur applicant is that she was allotted plot No. 28 by the Bank Employees Co-operative House Building Society, and, therefore, she is directly interested in the subject-matter of the suit and her presence is necessary for the proper decision of the case.

The plaintiffs of the main suit made a statement before the trial Court that they had no objection if Smt. Jagjit Kaur is impleaded as a plaintiff, but the defendants contested the application by stating that the suit is pending for the last five years. The application moved by Smt. Jagjit Kaur is not tenable. She is neither necessary nor a proper party. In case she has some grouse or grievance, she may bring a separate suit on her own accord.

The learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 29.11.1995 allowed the application, mainly on the ground that as the plaintiffs did not object to the prayer made by Smt. Jagjit Kaur and that the defendant had no locus standi to contest the application, therefore, the application deserved to be allowed. It was also stated by the trial Court that the applicant, being a member of the Society, would suffer loss in case she was not permitted to lead the evidence.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition, which is being disposed of with the assistance of Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Shri N.B.S. Gujral, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 9 Smt. Jagjit Kaur.

Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., lays down as follows:-

" (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent."

A perusal of the above provision would show that the intention of the Legislature behind this rule is whether the presence of a particular party is necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit or not. No person can claim as a matter of right that he or she may be added as a plaintiff or a defendant. The major consideration before the Court should always be whether in the absence of such a party it can or cannot decide the suit. The stand of the applicant is that she was allotted plot No. 28 by the Society, therefore, she is entitled to become as a plaintiff along with others who have challenged the execution of some of the sale deeds by Shri Ranjit Singh in favour of some of the defendants. I fail to understand how the presence of Smt. Jagjit Kaur has become necessary or proper for the effective adjudication of the rights of other plaintiffs, who are already on the record. It is not the case of the applicant that the other co-plaintiffs are not pursuing the case diligently or properly. Mere giving of the consent by the plaintiffs to the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., does not ipso facto entitle the court to allow such type of applications, although it is a major consideration for the disposing of such applications. The Court has to apply its mind if the presence of a particular individual has become necessary in the given circumstances and the trial Court should also try to understand the intention of such party as to why he or she wants to become a party to the main suit. Reverting to the facts in hand, the present suit is pending since 1991. The application has been moved in the year 1996 after a period of five years, perhaps at the instance of the plaintiffs, who are interested to drag the matter one way or the other, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri N.B.S. Gujral, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. As the trial Court has not recorded the evidence, therefore, in the main suit it has been filed in a representative capacity. By the allowing of this application, no prejudice has been caused to the defendants. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by Shri Gujral because his argument does not meet with the primary object of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C., regarding which I have already stated above. The application, in my considered view, was liable to be rejected and the trial Court has acted with patent illegality and material irregularity in allowing the application.

Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar is set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C., filed by Smt. Jagjit Kaur, is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.