Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Subhadra Bai vs Smt. Rukhmani Bai on 20 April, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
W. P. No. 21033/2013
Smt. Subhadra Bai & Another
Vs.
Smt. Rukhmani Bai and others
_________________________________________________________________
Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff.
Shri Sudeep Chaterjee, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 4/State. _________________________________________________________________ (Order) 20/04/2016 The petitioners have assailed the order dated 27-11-2013 whereby their application preferred under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC (Annexure P/3) is disallowed by the Court below.
2. Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have assigned detailed and sufficient reasons for their impleadment. They are necessary parties which can be seen from the averments of W.S. filed by the defendant No. 1 and 2. The Court below has not dealt with the said aspect and without examining whether the petitioners are necessary parties or not, rejected the said application on the singular reason that plaintiff is the dominus litis and, therefore, such application cannot be allowed.
3. Shri Seth, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff opposed the prayer by contending that W.S. was filed by the defendant No. 1 and 2 three years back. The petitioners have not assigned any reason as to why they could not file such application within a reasonable time. The Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the said application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
-:- 2 -:-
W.P. No. 21033 of 20135. A plain reading of impugned order dated 27-11-2013 shows that the application of petitioners is rejected on the singular reason that plaintiff is the dominus litis and he alone can decide as to who should be impleaded as a party.
6. In the opinion of this Court, no doubt the plaintiff is the dominus litis but this will not preclude the Court to implead necessary parties for avoiding multiplicity of litigations and to ensure that justice is done amongst the necessary parties. Para 1 of the application (Annexure P/3) reads as under:-
^^;g fd okfnuh us ;g okn caVokjk vf/kiR; ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk gsrq izLrqr fd;k gSA ftldk oknksRrj izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 }kjk fn;k tk pqdk gSA izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 }kjk vius oknksRrj esa ;g Li"V #i ls nf'kZr fd;k fd okfnuh ,oa izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 dh ekrk Jherh NanqckbZ csok xksdqy us iathc) olh;rukek fnukad 09-06-2009 dks vkosndx.k ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 us vius oknksRrj esa ;g Hkh nf'kZr fd;k Fkk fd izfroknh Øekad 1 ,os 2 us vius oknksRRkj esa ;g Hkh nf'kZr fd;k Fkk fd izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 dh rhu cgus Jherh ueZnkckbZ] Jherh xqykcckbZ rFkk Jherh y{ehckbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr okfnuh dh ekrk Jherh uhykckbZ gSA ftlds laca/k esa okfnuh us xr~ fnukadks dks vkosnui= varxZRk vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 O;ogkj izfØ;k lafgrk dk izLrqr dj mUgs i{kdkj cuk;k gSA fdUrq okfnuh dks tkudkjh gksus ds mijkar Hkh vkt fnukad rd vkosndx.k dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gSA^^
7. This para shows that present petitioners have assigned certain reasons on the strength of which they prayed for their impleadment. The Court below did not deal with aforesaid aspect and did not examine whether petitioners are necessary parties or not. Thus, the order impugned suffers from procedural impropriety and perversity. Resultantly, the order dated 27-11-2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Court below to hear the parties again on Annexure P/3 and decide it afresh in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to raise their possible arguments in support of and against the said application (Annexure P/3) before the Court below.
8. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge mohsin/