Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur vs Kunal Bansal on 17 October, 2016
1
Writ Petition No. 3993/2014
20.10.2016
Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for respondent No. 1
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent No.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is finally heard.
Rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has led the petitioner, the proposed intervenor, file this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The said application as is evident from the impugned order has been dismissed on the ground that the proposed intervenor has failed to establish any interest of his in the suit property. The said finding is borne out from the following observations :
**izdj.k ds voyksdu ls nf'kZr gS fd oknh }kjk uxj ikfydk fuxe ds fo#) lkjr% bl vk'k; dk okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd og oknxzLr LFkku dk oS/k Lokeh o vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS ,o mlds lca/k esa izfroknh }kjk fuekZ.k gVkus gsrq izsf"kr lwpuk i= fnukad 10@10@13 ,o 9@12@13 fof/k fo#) gksdj 'kwU; gSaA okni= vuqlkj izfroknh }kjk muds fuekZ.k dks fof/k fo#) #i ls vfrØe.k n'kkZdj rksM+s tkus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gSA oknh }kjk izLrkfor i{kdkj ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh lgk;rk ugha pkgh x;h gSaA orZeku okn esa oknh ds LokfeRo dk izR;k[;ku fd;s tkus ls okn gsrqd mRiUu uk gksdj izfroknh }kjk fufeZr fuekZ.k dks rksM+s tkus laca/kh fn;s x;s lwpuk i= ds vk/kkj ij okn gsrqd mRiUu gksuk nf'kZr gSA orZEkku okn esa lkjr% fookn izfroknh }kjk fuekZ.k rksM+s tkus laca/kh uksfVl ls lacaf/kr gksdj LokfeRo ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA 2 izfroknh }kjk lkjr% uksfVl dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ,oa fu"ks/kkKk gsrq okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izLrkfor i{kdkj oknh ds fo#) i`Fkd ls LokfeRo ,oa dCtk okilh ds laca/k esa okn izLrqr djus gsrq Lora= gSA fdlh Hkh fHkUu okn gsrqd ds laca/k esa okn esa uohu i{kdkj dks tksM+k ugha tk ldrk gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fdlh i{kdkj dks rc Hkh ugha tksM+k tk ldrk tcfd mls tksMs+ tkus ls okn dh izd`fr fHkUu gks tkosA vr% orZEkku izdj.k ds i{kdkjksa ds e/; fook|d ds vafre ,oa U;k; laxr fujkdj.k gsrq izLrkfor i{kdkj dh mifLFkfr vko';d gksuk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% izdj.k dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s i{kdkjksa ds e/; fook|d ds U;k;laxr fujkdj.k gsrq izLrkfor i{kdkj dh mifLFkfr vko';d uk gksus ls izLrkfor i{kdkj vko';d i{kdkj izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izLrkfor i{kdkj dh vksj ls izLrqr gjh'k dqekj okys ekeys esa ,d vU; ekeyk yafcr gksus ,oa mDr ekeys ds fu.kZ; dk izHkko iz'uxr ekeys ij gksus ls vkosnd dks vko';d i{kdkj ik;k x;k FkkA jkejkrks ckck okys ekeys esa eafnj dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa nsork dks vko';d i{kdkj gksus laca/kh fof/k izfrikfnr dh x;h FkhA gkth eks0 'kkg ,oa dLrwjh okys ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ka orZeku izdj.k dh rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ls mDr U;k;n`"Vkar izLrkfor i{kdkj dks dksbZ ykHk iznku ugha djrs gSA vr% izLrkfor i{kdkj dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 O;0iz0la0 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ It is a settled principle of law regarding impleadment that though the plaintiff is dominus litis; however, for determining whether a person is a necessary party; two tests are to be satisfied, viz. (i) there must a right to some relief against such party in respect of manner in the proceeding in question; and (ii) it should be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such party 3 [Please see Deputy Commissioner vs Ramkrishna AIR 1953 SC 521].
In Ramesh Hirachan Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524, wherein it has been held-
"...The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. 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. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action.."
The impugned order when tested on the anvil of the facts of the case and more particularly paragraph 1 of the plaint wherein respondent/plaintiff has categorically stated of his being the owner 4 and in possession of shop Nos. 2 and 3 situated over plot No. 163 A, Samanvay Nagar, Khajuri Kala, Bhopal and declaration of title and the nature of relief sought by the respondent/plaintiff and the fact that there exists serious dispute as to number exists of plot bearing No. 163 A, Samanvay Nagar, Khajuri Kala, Bhopal, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permitting the petitioner to be party in the suit.
Reliance placed by the respondent/plaintiff on the decisions in Kanhaiyalal Negi and another v. Nagar Palika Nigam Khandwa [2001 (3) MPLJ 293] and Moti Lal v. Municipal Council, Pali and others [AIR 2010 (NOC) 52 (RAJ)] since turn on their own facts are of no assistance to the respondent plaintiff.
Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order dated 23.1.2014 the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. Let the respondents/plaintiff incorporate the petitioner as defendant in the cause title.
Petition is allowed to the extent above. There shall be no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE VIVEK