Delhi District Court
Smt. Madhu vs . B.S.E.S. Ypl Ltd. on 5 October, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR: JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
Suit No. 639/09
In the matter of :
Smt. Madhu VS. B.S.E.S. YPL Ltd.
ORDER
1 This order shall dispose of the application of the applicant Sh. Zakir Hussain moved u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC. Vide present application applicant Zakir Hussain wants to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the present suit by asserting that he has purchased the suit property from Smt. Shakra Begum and from Smt. Ravia vide Sale Deed dt. 20.12.2010 as well as by rectification dated 18.01.2011. 2 Facts necessary for the disposal of the present application are that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff who asserted himself as tenant of one Smt. Poonam Aggarwal. He further asserted that he is in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff asserted that she has got installed the electricity connection at the suit premises on the basis of no objection certificate given by the landlady Smt. Poonam Suit No. 639/09 Page 1 of 5 2 Aggarwal and further asserted in the plaint that the defendant B.S.E.S. has threatened to disconnect he electricity on the ground that the plaintiff has got connection by manipulating the documents. 3 The applicant stated in his application that he has purchased the suit property from Smt. Sakara and Smt. Ravia. He further stated that he being the owner of the suit property, is necessary, to adjudicate the present suit. 4 Reply to the application has not been filed by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that there is no necessity to implead the applicant as one of the defendants in the present suit. 4 I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties. I have also perused the record. As per para 15 in case titled Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 417, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have Suit No. 639/09 Page 2 of 5 3 been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/ interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."
5 It is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case titled as Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Vs. W.B. Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 Cal 87 that :
"If the law of the land provides that a person in possession of any premises may not be disposed therefrom except in accordance with law, it is implicit that the possession of the person is protected till such time that an appropriate forum holds otherwise and the person is removed from the premises under due process of law. It would then defy reason to suggest that such person can continue to be in possession but be denied an essential utility as electricity which is within the broad sweep of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."Suit No. 639/09 Page 3 of 5 4
6 Since during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for applicant has admitted the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case titled Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Vs. W.B. Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 Cal 87 (Supra) has observed that if a person is in possession of suit property, he has right to use electricity in the premises in his possession. The dispute of installation of electricity is between the plaintiff and B.S.E.S. I am of the view that the presence of applicant is not necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant. Application is dismissed.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 05.10.11) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS
Suit No. 639/09 Page 4 of 5
5
Suit No. 639/09
05.10.2011
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant/ BSES.
Arguments heard on the application of the applicant u/o 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC.
Put up for orders at 4.00 p.m. (Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKD COURTS/05.10.11 At 4.00 p.m. Present: Plaintiff in person.
Proxy counsel for defendant.
Vide separate order, the application of applicant Zakir Hussain u/o 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC is dismissed.
Put up on 01.11.2011 for framing of issues, filing of documents, if any and A/D of documents.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKD COURTS/05.10.11 Suit No. 639/09 Page 5 of 5