Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. I am of the view that as such there is no legal embargo against addition of any new parties after a preliminary decree in a suit for partition has been passed. It is well settled that a suit for partition stands disposed of only with the passing of the final decree. If a decree is in the nature of a preliminary decree of partition then in that case the suit would continue and would remain under the control of the Court till either party moves for passing the final decree. However, what is important is that impleadment of additional parties subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree is permissible only if none of the questions already settled by the preliminary decree are not to be reopened by the Court as a consequence of such impleadment. The addition of parties can be allowed at that stage only on condition that the further proceedings to be taken in the suit will be only on the basis of the preliminary decree already passed and none of the questions settled by the preliminary decree will be allowed to be reagitated on the ground that the person newly impleaded was not before the Court at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree.

17. I am fortified in taking this view by a Division Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Neelkantha Pillai Ramchandran Nair Vs. Ayyappan Pillai Kumara Pillai, reported in AIR 1978 Kerala 152. The issue before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was almost the same and I am in complete agreement with the proposition of law which has been explained in this regard. In paragraph Nos.4 and 5 the Division Bench has held as under:

"4.
After having given our anxious consideration to all aspects of the matter, we are of opinion that (in cases such as suits for redemption or partition) where the passing of a preliminary decree is contemplated, the power conferred under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. is to be regarded as circumscribed by the provisions contained iri S. 2 (2) and S. 97 of the Code. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Venkata Reddi v. Pethi Reddi (AIR 1963 SC 992), S. 97, C. P. C. clearly indicates that in respect of the matters covered by a preliminary decree, the said decree is to be regarded as embodying the final decision of the court passing it. It will not, therefore, be reasonable to understand the provision in O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. as empowering the impleadment of additional parties in a suit in circumstances which would necessitate the ripping open of the determination made in the preliminary decree already passed in the suit. However, one can very well conceive of several situations where an impleadment of an additional party may be asked for or may be considered by the court to be necessary for a proper and complete adjudication of the matters in controversy in such a suit and such impleadment would not involve the reopening of matters already finally settled by the preliminary decree. The correct legal position in our opinion is that while the passing of a preliminary decree in a suit for partition or redemption will not ipso facto operate as a total bar against the addition of any new parties to the action, the impleadment of additional parties subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree is permissible only if none of the questions already settled by the preliminary decree would have to be reopened by the court as a consequence of such impleadment ; the addition of parties can be allowed at that stage only on condition that the further proceedings to be taken in the suit will be only on the basis of the preliminary decree already passed, and none of the questions settled by the preliminary decree will be allowed to be reagitated on the ground that the person newly impleaded was not before the court at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree. As to whether or not the impleadment of a new party should be allowed on the aforesaid condition in the circumstances of a particular case will have to be considered by the court on the merits of each case as and when the said question arises. No party should be impleaded against his will if that would involve his being subjected to the terms of a preliminary decree which was passed without his being on the party array, particularly when there are pleas which the said party could have put forward in respect of the matters considered and settled by the preliminary decree.
5. We do not, therefore, find it possible to agree wholly with the principle laid down in either of the two sets of rulings cited before us, as, in our opinion, it would not be right either to completely rule out the addition of parties after the passing of a preliminary decree or to recognise an unrestricted power to allow the impleadment of additional parties even after the preliminary decree so as to rip open matters already decided and settled by the preliminary decree. As we have already indicated the correct view seems to us to be that the power of the court to implead additional parties at a stage subsequent to the passing of a preliminary decree in an action for partition or redemption must be limited to cases where such impleadment of additional parties would not involve the ripping open of any of the matters already dealt with in the preliminary decree and the case can be proceeded with the additional parties on record on the basis of the determination already given in the preliminary decree."