Delhi High Court
Evangelical Church Of India vs North India Outreach Society on 9 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1997DELHI319, (1997)117PLR55, AIR 1997 DELHI 319, (1997) 40 DRJ 250, (1997) 65 DLT 591, (1997) 117 PUN LR 55, (1998) 1 RECCIVR 600, (1998) 2 CIVLJ 721
Author: R.C. Lahoti
Bench: R.C. Lahoti
JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment as a party to the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondents 2 to 6.
(2) Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for issuance of perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 6 alleging that respondent No.2 to 6 were employees of respondent No.1 and in their capacity as employees were inducted into possession of the premises belonging to the society respondent No.1, which employment having come to an end, the respondent No.2 to 6 were bound to restore possession to respondent No.1.
(3) According to the petitioner, as per the averments made in the application dated 5.2.1996, under Order I Rule 10 Cpc, it is the petitioner and not the plaintiff- respondent No.1, who is the owner of the suit property. The sale consideration at the time of acquisition of the property in the year 1985 was paid out of the bank account of the petitioner but the sale deed which was executed in 1985 was so manipulated as to be executed in the name of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It was further submitted that if the petitioner was not allowed to be imp leaded as a party to the suit, there will be multiplicity of the proceedings and the interest of the applicant-petitioner would be seriously prejudiced.
(4) The learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner forming an opinion that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The impleadment would enlarge the scope of controversy in the suit which could not be allowed.
(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed forceful reliance on Satish Chand Gupta vs Sarvesh Chand Gupta, and Khaja Abdul Khader vs Mahabub Saheb, to submit that the expression : `questions involved in the suit' as occurring in sub rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I Civil Procedure Code has to be liberally interpreted. To attract the applicability of the provision, it is not necessary that the party sought to be imp leaded should be one whose presence may be required for deciding the questions already arising in the suit. If the impleadment would avoid multiplicity of the proceedings touching the same property then it should be allowed.
(6) In the opinion of this court the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is too wide and cannot be accepted. I may straightaway refer to a Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Panne Khushali v Jeewanlal, . Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in D.C. vs Ramakrishan, and Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Benaras Bank vs Bhagwandas, Air 1947 All 18, the following tests have been laid down for determining who is necessary party to a suit : "(I)THEREmust be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question. (ii)It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party."
(7) As to who is a proper party it has been held vide para 13 in the case of Panne ( supra): "THE governing expression for deciding the question of proper party is whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Thus, the question of proper parties has also to be decided, bearing in mind the scope of the suit. The question involved in the suit is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties. If these applicants are introduced as party in the suit, the scope of the suit, as already observed hereinabove would be enlarged and it would be turned into a suit for title., For effectually and completely adjudicating upon the rights between the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 on the contract, the presence of these applicants is not at all necessary. We cannot be oblivious of the legal position also that the judgment in the suit would be a judgment inter parties and not a judgment in rem and as such, it would be operative only between the parties. Therefore, the expression "all the questions involved in the suit" can very well be said to mean the questions as between the parties to the litigation. The scope of the suit cannot be widened. The judgment in this suit is not going to affect the title of the applicants, if any. The plaintiff is the dominus lotus and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law and, as already discussed hereinabove, these applicants are not necessary parties and as such, the plaintiff cannot be forced upon to join them as parties."
(8) So far as the suit filed by respondent no.1 is concerned, the question of title to the suit property does not arise for decision. All that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 would be required to prove is: (i) that the defendant No.2 to 6 were in the employment of the plaintiff; (ii) that they were inducted into possession of the premises by the plaintiff on account of their being in its employment and (iii) that the defendants are liable to restore possession to the plaintiff consequent to their employment having been terminated or they having ceased to be entitled to continue in possession of the premises. To decide any of these questions, impleadment of the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper. This impleadment would complicate the trial and call upon the court to embark upon adjudication of such issues as are not germane to the trial of the suit before it. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not in his application disputed the correctness of the averments made in the plaint by the respondent NO.1 touching the three points stated hereinabove. By the rejection of the petitioner's application no prejudice is caused to it inasmuch as the petitioner is still at liberty to file its own suit seeking adjudication of title qua the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (impleading the other respondents too if so advised.) (9) The two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable. 9.1In Satish Chand Gupta ( supra) the plaintiff claimed an injunction against the defendant-tenants restraining them from parting with possession. The intervener was co-owner of the premises who had obtained possession during pendency of the suit. In such circumstances the impleadment was allowed and upheld by the High Court. In this context it was observed:
"THE object of O.1 Rule 10(2) is that the real dispute raised in the suit should be decided in the presence of all the parties interested in the suit. It is not limited to questions which are involved in the suit as between the parties originally imp leaded."
9.2However, the High Court has further proceeded to say : "A material question common to the parties and to third parties should be tried once for all. To secure this result the court has a discretion to add parties which it should exercise, unless by the addition of new parties either of the parties already on the record would be prejudiced of their remedies."
9.3In Khaja's case ( supra), the suit was for ejectment of the defendants based on the title of the plaintiff which was denied by the defendant. The intervener had sought for the impleadment setting up his title by heirship. The trial court had held the intervener to be a proper party and permitted impleadment. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed :- "When the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will have to establish their title to the suit property. The court has to determine the question of title of the plaintiffs. In order to decide the question relating to the ownership of the land, the 1st respondent who is sought to be imp leaded in the suit as a defendant and who claims to be the owner of the land in question, must be considered to be a necessary and proper party without whose presence the question cannot be finally and effectually adjudicated upon."
[ pr 7] (10) It was this finding recorded by the court which had allowed the impleadment ordered by the trial court being maintained by the High Court. Such is not the case here.
(11) For the foregoing reasons the revision is held devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(12) With the dismissal of the Cr, CMs 2799, 4263/96 also stand rejected.