Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Garhi vs Dharambir And Ors. on 12 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998P&H165, (1998)118PLR809, AIR 1998 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 165, (1998) 2 CIVILCOURTC 461, (1998) 118 PUN LR 809, (1998) 2 RECCIVR 98, (1998) 3 ICC 127, (1998) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 253
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hansi dated 13-1-1997 whereby the learned trial Court had allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Col. Michle. A. R. Skinner, and seven other for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.
2. Applicants before the trial Court and respondents 19 to 26 before this Court had filed the application for impleadment as defendants in the suit on the allegations that they are the owners of one building on Khasra No. 393 within the Abadi Deh Mauza Gari. The applicants had entered into an agreement to sell this property for a sale consideration of Rs. 5 lacs and actual possession thereafter was delivered to Dharambir. The applicants could not execute any sale deed in favour of Dharambir because some of the applicants were non-resident India and complete documentation could not be completed. In the year 1972, this building was taken by the police department and police station was functioning from the building since. 18th February, 1973. When the building was vacated by the police authorities, possession thereof was handed over to the applicants in the year 1990. According to the applicants some of their articles are still lying in the building and Dharambir who is the prospective purchaser is in possession. On these facts, it is pleaded uat they are necessary party to the present suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which has been filed by the plaintiffs without impieading them as party. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs in the suit i.e. Gram Panchayat Garhi. To oppose the application, it was stated that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. They had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. The building is Dharamsala and is situated within Lal Dora. The Gram Panchayat claimed the possession over the building for the last 100 years and applicant cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceedings against the will of the plaintiffs.
3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court had allowed the application and concluded that the present suit was for declaration and injunction and the Court was called upon to decide the question of title as well. As no prejudice was likely to be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit, the applicants were ordered to be so impleaded.
Aggrieved from this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat Garhi.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is primarily concerned to see whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties to the proceedings. Whether they had any interest in the suit property and if their presence was necessary before the Court for complete and effective adjudication of the subject-matter of the suit.
5. It was neither disputed, in reply to the application nor before me that the police department was having its office in the property in dispute and when the same was vacated possession thereof handed over to the applicants in the year 1990. The disputed property is a part of the bigger property which are respectively owned by the parties.
6. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the parties had placed on record the photo copies of the plaint and the written statement filed by the respective parties in the trial Court. In the plaint, it was the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property for the last more than 100 years and the property is adjacent to Khasra No. 496 which is admittedly the property of the applicants. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it has been averred by the plaintiffs themselves that Col. Michle A. R. Skinner (applicant) and other are in the habit of grabbing the propertiesand these applicants are claiming possession and title to the property.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-Dharamvir and others, they had clearly admitted that Skinner are the owner of the property and the property is adjacent to Khasra No. 496 which is also in the name of the applicants. Defcndant-Dharambir and others are claiming title through Skinner applicant which they stated to be their property. The controversy that arises from the pleadings of the parties, which are already on the record, is that the applicants certainly have an interest in the property and they claimed to he the owner of the property where the question of title and relief of injunction based thereupon is involved. The true owner of the property cannot be said to be a stranger to the suit. The applicants could pass the title to Dharambir and other what they possess and Dharambir could not claim any better title than what was vested in the applicants. Both these parties are intricably inter-dependant and their interest in the property, as claimed, cannot be diversified. It is an admitted case that no sale deed has yet been registered or executed. For that reason their interest in the property in the eye of law would be joint, if, as a matter of fact such interest at all exists. This in any case, would be the basic question which the Court would be called upon to decide during the trial as to who is the true/original owner of the property and who is in possession and whether such possession is lawful or not. This Court must stop at this juncture and refrain from discussing merit of this case any further because it is likely to effect the merits of the case of the parties to these proceedings.
8. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the case of Krishan Lal v. Suresh Kumar, C.R. No. 1204 of 1997 and Jaspal Kaur v. Hazara Singh, Civil Revision No. 3907 of 1997 both decided on 6-2-1998. In these cases after discussing the principles governing the controversy in issue in some detail held as under :--
"The Code of Civil Procedure provides as to how a suit has to be instituted and how would it end. The Code provides thread of continuity, which would regulate various stages of the suit. In other words, the intention of the legislation must and has to be gathered from the various provisions of the Code read collectively and in conjunction with each other. Whereas Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 of the Code provides who are the persons who would be joined as plaintiffs and/or defendants, Rule 10 gives power to the Court to add parties to direct addition and impleadment of parties and Rule 8-A gives right to a party to approach the Court for being implcaded as a party, if the applicant has an interest in any question which directly and substantially arise in the suit. The provisions regulating impleadment of necessary and proper parties, whose presence is necessary before the Court for proper and final adjudication must be construed in a wider perspective as the provisions of Order 2, Rule 1 of the Code clearly indicate that every suit, as far as practicable, be framed so as to afford grounds for final decision upon the subjects in disputes and to prevent further litigation concerning them. To hold that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation in regard to the same subject-matter is not even relevant factor while considering the application for impleadment, to my mind, would be an approach not in line with the spirit of the procedural law.
In order to have a pervasive and baroque approach to the provisions of the Code which would be also in consonance with the scheme of the Code, would be to read the provisions of Order 1 and other effecting provisions of the Code. Collectively rather than to read and construe Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code in abstract or isolation. Interpretation of construction of procedural laws or provisions related thereto must be read to achieve the ends of justice which is an indispensable object of basic rule of law. With the modern development in all spheres of life the Courts must mould the procedural laws to further the cause of expeditious disposal and determination of all questions in one proceedings, if permissible in law, rather than to direct the parties to create multiplicity of litigation.
Without being innovative and primarily on reiteration of the settled principles and in a derivative manner, it is possible to indicate certain factors which may be considered by the Court while determining such a question :--
(a) Whether the applicant is a necessary and proper party keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the ease?
(b) Whether presence of such a party before the Court is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter and grating a complete and effective decree to the party entitled to?
(c) Whether such a party interested would be directed affected as a result of culmination of such persons into decree or it would only be effected remotely, indirectly and distantly?
In addition to above, where the Court considers the presence of a party necessary for proper and complete adjudication, then it may well be considered relevant whether non-impleadment of such a party would result in avoidable multiplicity of litigation, then effort should be to implead a party rather than to force the party to go to a fresh litigation.
The above principles are not exhaustive but are merely indicating what may be considered by the Court in addition to such consideration, which may be appropriately considered relevant by the Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a given case. The Legislative intent to provide an effective protection to a party who may be affected by the questions to be determined by a Court in a suit or proceedings and to have complete adjudication, is clear from the introduction of Rule 10-A in Order I of the Code vide Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976.
9. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff is dominus litus of the suit is not an absolute rule. The law intends and has actually provided for exceptions. In the present case, if the applicants are not impleaded as parties specially when they satisfies the condition aforestated would only lead to multiplicity of litigation which is neither the object nor legislative intent of any procedural or substantive law.
10. While on the other hand, if the applicants are iinplcaded as party to the suit, it would help the Court to give a complete and effective relief to either party to the suit and the presence of the applicants would serve the purpose of complete adjudication in conformity with the accepted norms.
11. For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the learned trial court dated 13-1-1997 is affirmed. The application of the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sustained. There shall be no order as to costs.