Patna High Court - Orders
Anil Kumar vs Ramuday Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2012
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7713 of 2012
======================================================
1. Anil Kumar Son Of Sri Ayodhya Kumar Resident Of
Village Bihat, Zero Mile, N.H. 31, P.S. Barauni, District
Begusarai
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ramuday Singh Wife Of Late Uchit Singh Resident
Of Village Bihat Tola, Khemkaranpur, P.S. Barauni,
District Begusarai
2. The State Of Bihar Through Collector, Begusarai
3. Circle Officer, Barauni, District Begusarai
4.Engineer-In-Chief, National Highway,
Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
5. Chief Engineer, National Highway, Vishveshwaraiya
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
6. Superintending Engineer, National Highway
Division (N.H.-31) Purnia
7. Executive Engineer, National Highway Division
(N.H.-31) Khagaria
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Maijorwar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jha Gp18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORDER
2 25-04-2012The petitioner, herein, is aggrieved by an order dated 06.02.2012/07.02.2012 passed by Munsif II, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 23 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has rejected the petition dated 21.07.2011 filed under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as the defendant in the aforesaid suit. The impugned order is placed at Annexure-5 to this application. Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the present application are that one Ram Uday Singh filed a Title Suit No. 23 of 2009 for declaration of title and recovery of possession over a portion of land of Khesra Nos. 63 and 64, Khata No. 506, Tauzi No. 5325 situated at Mauza Chak Ahmadgarsayal and also for setting aside the notice dated 09.05.2009 issued by the Circle Officer, Barauni, District Begusarai, whereby the plaintiff has been directed to remove encroachment from the suit land.
The said Ram Uday Singh, the plaintiff has been impleaded as Respondent no.1 and the Circle Officer, Barauni, has been impleaded as Respondent no.3 in the present application. A copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure- 1 to the application, from which it appears that the plaintiff/Respondent no.1 has impleaded six persons as defendants in the suit, who are all officials of the State of Bihar. The case of the plaintiff before the Court below is that the defendant no.2, Circle Officer, Barauni vide his notice dated 9.5.2009 has asked the plaintiff to remove the encroachment from the land over which he has right title and interest and the same has been done only because the suit land is just adjacent to the north of N.H.-31. From reading of the plaint, it appears that Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 the dispute of title over the property is between Respondent no.2 herein, and the State of Bihar.
The petitioner, herein, filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that he purchased 15 Katha 16 dhurs land through different sale-deeds of S.P. No. 1817 under Khata No. 359, Tauzi No. 8143, Thana No. 472 of village Asurari under P.S. Barauni on which he has constructed pucca residential house from northern side in which he is residing with the family members. His plea is that the suit land of Khesra No. 63 under Khata No. 506, area 2 acres 72 decimals and suit land of S.P. No.64 under same Khesra, area 2 acres 83 decimals of village Pupror as per khatiyan, but according to the Map, total area of two plots measured 5 acres 55 decimals. He has further alleged that 30 decimals out of S.P. Plot No. 63 and one acre 25 decimals out of S.P. Plot No. 64 were acquired for N.H.-31, for which land Acquisition Case No. 13/1960-61 was started and the same has finally been acquired. The specific case of the petitioner in his application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of his application which is Annexure-2 to this application and are being quoted hereinbelow:-
"(9) That it is relevant to mention here that the Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 petitioner has been using the land of N.H. 31 towards north of N.H. 31 as Rasta since the time of his purchased which is the suit land mentioned in the Schedule II of the plaint, but the plaintiff of the suit illegally and forcefully want to disturb the petitioner from using the said land as Rasta which goes from N.H. 31 to the residential house of the petitioner.
(10) That the plaintiff has got no concern or manner with the suit land rather the petitioner is using the suit land as Rasta from N.H. 31 to the residential home of the petitioner since more than 12 years and the claim of the plaintiff over the suit land is illegal and highly unjustified."
Apparently the petitioner has not claimed title over the suit land and sought to be impleaded as defendant only on the ground of right over the suit land as right of easement.
In my opinion, the petition is misconceived and the Court below has rightly rejected the petitioner‟s application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as he cannot be termed to be necessary or even a relevant party in Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 dispute with regard to the suit land, in as much as he himself has stated that he does not have any concern in any manner with the suit land and he is using the same as „Rasta‟.
It is well settled law that the party to be added under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure must have direct interest in disputed property. Reference may be made in this regard to the case of Razia Begum Vs . Anwar Begum reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886, wherein it has been held that in order that a person may be added as party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in 1992 AIR SCW 846 has laid down that the person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. The Court has further held in paragraph 14 as follows:-
"The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest."
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 that in order to prevent multiplicity of action, he should have been allowed to be added as a defendant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The submission has been made to be rejected, in view of the fact that the petitioner does not have any direct interest in the subject matter of litigation.
Reference may also be made to another Supreme Court judgment reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 (Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others), wherein the Apex Court laid down two tests for determining as to who can be said to be necessary party. Those tests have been set out in paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as follows:-
"Tests are- (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party."
The question of addition of a party in exercise of jurisdiction under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall arise only when a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the dispute.
In view of the above, the learned Court has rightly rejected the petitioner‟s application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly the same needs no Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012 interference.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Arun Kumar/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7713 of 2012 (2) dt.25-04-2012
Heard by ( CAV) Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh ( for kind perusal) Arun Kumar