Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Kumar vs Smt. Raj Rani Bhati And Ors. on 20 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)103PLR531
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed against the order of the Sub Judge IInd Class, Faridabad dated 20th of January, 1992, disallowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party to the suit.
2. The plaintiffs who are the respondents before me filed a suit against their mother Raj Rani claiming themselves to be owners in possession of a house situated in Ballabgarh. This suit was filed claiming the relief on the basis of a family settlement recorded in January, 1989 during the life time of Shri Giri Raj Singh, the father of the plaintiffs and the husband of the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The case was fixed for arguments when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 3.8. 1991 was moved by the petitioner seeking to be impleaded as one of the defendants on the ground that Smt. Raj Rani the defendants in the suit had entered into an agreement to mortgage with possession the suit property vide agreement dated 15 10.1990 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-. which the petitioner had paid in full. It was prayed by the petitioner that as the defendant had failed to execute the mortgage deed and she was now in collusion with her children seeking to defeat not only his rights to the property but also to swaloow the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-, it was necessary that the petitioner be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. This application was a opposed by the plaintiffs and it was stated that the family settlement had been arrived in the year 1989 during the life time of their father and the defendant had relinquished her rights in respect of the suit property and as such even if she had entered into an agreement with the petitioner it was not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court considered the matter and held that the plaintiffs were dominus litus in the suit and it was upto them to implead any person. It was also held that merely because the person who wanted to be impleaded as a party would be inconvenienced in case he was to file a separate suit was not ground for being so impleaded. The application was accordingly dismissed and the present petition has been filed against that order.
3. It has been urged by Mr. Hari Om Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts as stated it was apparent that the parties in the suit had filed the same in collusion so as to deprive the petitioner of his rights in the property and also of the money which he had paid. It is asserted that if he was called upon to file a separate suit to vindicate his rights it will lead to multiple proceedings which should avoided as has been held by this Court in Smt. Ram Kali v. Shri Ujala, (1988-2) 94 P.L.R. 553.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petition deserves to be succeed. It is true that it is for the plaintiff in a suit to determine the parties that he wishes to implead, but it is also to be borne in mind that the basic purpose underlying the procedural law is the interest of justice and if the Court is convinced that in a particular situation interest of justice require that a party should be impleaded, technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way. it is significant that Order 1 Rule 10 (2) specifically provides that a person can be added as a party where the Court finds that his presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Keeping in view all the above circumstances and also to avoid multipalicity of suits, it would be highly inequitable to relegate the petitioner to seek redress by filing a separate suit The observations of this Court in the case cited by the learned counsel fully support his stand.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the order of the Sub Judge IInd Class, Faridabad dated 20th of January, 1992 is set aside and it. is ordered that the petitioner be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th of February, 1993.