Delhi District Court
Om Parkash vs . Gaon Sabha Paprawat & Ors. on 22 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.VIKAS DHULL: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS NO: 254/2009
OM PARKASH V/S. GAON SABHA PAPRAWAT & ORS.
Date on which order reserved : 13.02.2012
Date on which order pronounced : 22.02.2012
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed by the applicants Sh.Dharmpal and Sh.Desh Ram, residents of village Paprawat for their impleadment u/O 1 rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC)
2. It is averred in the application that applicants have come to know regarding the pendency of the present case with regard to public passage falling in Khasra No. 241 of village Paprawat, Delhi. It is further averred that said public passage has been encroached by the plaintiff and in this regard applicants and other villagers have made many complaints before the concerned authorities but due to litigation between plaintiff and one Sri Chand, the concerned authorities have not taken any action against the plaintiff on the ground of pendency of litigation. It is further averred that since applicants are bonafide residents of village Paprawat, they have CS NO: 254/09 1/4 direct interest in the public passage and for fair and proper adjudication of matter in controversy, it is necessary to implead applicants as necessary parties in the present suit. Accordingly, it is prayed that applicants be impleaded as defendants in the present case.
3. In the reply filed by plaintiff, it was submitted that applicants have never made any complaint against the plaintiff before any authority. However, it was admitted that applicants are native villagers of village Paprawat. However, it was denied that applicants are necessary parties for deciding the controversy in issue. Accordingly, a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.
4. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and counsel for applicants. I have also perused the material available on record.
5. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC provides for addition of parties, who are proper and necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Further what is proper and necessary party has not been defined in Order 1 rule 10(2) CPC.However in the matter of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (1996) 5 SCC 539, it was defined as to who is necessary or proper party in the suit. It was held that" a necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the addition of parties, thus, would depend upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised, in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case."
CS NO: 254/09 2/46. In the light of the law discussed as aforesaid, now let us see whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties in this case or not. The controversy in issue is that plaintiff claims that the area shown in red in the site plan which falls in khasra no.241, Village Paprawat, Delhi is infact is forming part of his plot in khasra no. 239. It is further the case of the plaintiff that no common passage was left during the consolidation proceedings and area shown in red in site plan is his private property. On the other hand, the stand the defendant no.1 & 2 is that khasra no. 241 is a common passage to be utilized by villagers of village Paprawat, Delhi and the said public passage was left during the consolidation proceedings.
7. Now to resolve the present controversy, necessary parties are owners of Khasra No. 239 and 241 i.e.plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2. Since applicants are neither the owners of khasra no.239 or of 241 of village Paprawat, therefore, they are not necessary parties for deciding the controversy in issue. Further the applicants are also not proper parties as their presence is not required for complete and final decision involved in the present proceedings. The interest of applicants is well represented through defendants no.1,2 and 5, who are custodian of revenue records with regard to khasra no. 239 and 241 of village Paprawat. Further there is sufficient representation on behalf of villagers of village Paprawat as defendant no.4 Sri Chand, who had fought the case u/s 133 Cr.P.C.uptil the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to common passage in question, is a defendant in this case. Therefore, applicants are neither CS NO: 254/09 3/4 necessary nor proper parties for deciding the controversy in issue. Hence, their impleadment is unwarranted. Accordingly, the application filed by applicants u/O 1 rule 10 CPC is dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 22.02.2012 SCJ:RC
Dwarka/Delhi
CS NO: 254/09 4/4