Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Sivaram vs Gananajyothi on 5 December, 2008 cites

Firm Of Mahadeva Rice And Oil Mills And ... vs Chennimalai Goundar on 16 December, 1966

"3. The question for my determination is, whether "the Intervenor" was a proper or necessary party to the present suit. The law on the subject can be formulated from the decisions in Firm of Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills Vs Chennimalai Gounder, AIR 1968 Mad 287, Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad Vs Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal, AIR 1969 Punj. & Har 57, (1892)1 Ch.487, Foll. & AIR 1958 A.P. 195, Ref. (sic). The principles governing the powers of the Court under O. 1, R. 10 of C.P.C. are: As a rule the Court should not add a person as a defendant in a suit when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition. The reason is that the plaintiff is the "dominus littis". He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. The word 'may' in sub rule (2) imports a discretion, the Courts will invariably take into account the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as a defendant to his suit. Under sub-para. (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, a person may be added as a party to a suit in two cases only, i.e., when he ought to have been joined and is not so joined, i.e. when he is a necessary party, or, when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. There is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit into which he seeks intrusion. A person may not be added as a defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The following tests may be formulated usefully as a guidance in the case of adding of parties, under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.; (1) If, for the adjudication of the "real controversy" between the parties on record, the presence of a third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded; (2) It is imperative to note that by such impleading of the proposed party, all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject-matter which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself; (3) The proposed party must have a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognisable in law; (4) Meticulous care should be taken to avoid the adding of a party when the addition is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other grievances of one or the other of the parties on record which is neither necessary or expedient to be considered by the Court in the pending litigation; and (5) It should always be remembered that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by Courts by adding a new party whose interest has no nexus to the subject-matter of the suit."
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Jugraj Singh & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Ors on 16 March, 1970

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 submits that considering their involvement in the impugned sale, the revision petitioners are alteast proper parties in the suit and the trial court has rightly adverted to the facts and impleaded them as defndants in the suit. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1971 SC 761 (Jugraj Singh Vs Jaswant Singh).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 190 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

C.M.V. Krishnamachari vs M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal And Ors. on 16 April, 1965

(3) It is an essential prerequisite for one to be made a party that should have a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. Ramamurthi, J. Had occasion to consider exhaustively the implications of O. I R.10, C.P.C. In Krishnamachari Vs Dhanalakshmi Ammal (1966) 2 Mad LJ 298 = (AIR 1968 Mad 142). The learned Judge observed that the interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest, that is, an interest which law would recognise and uphold. Thus, the sine qua non for any person being impleaded to an already pending lis is that he or she should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject-matter. A mere convenience or benefit which might possibly result too a party applicant by adding another party to the pending suit is not the test to be applied. Avoidance of multiplicity of legal proceedings is no doubt a salient rule. Such avoidance must be in relation to the lis in question and cannot embarass all possible conceivable litigation that the parties may indulge in later which are totally unconnected with the main issues in the suit. Another infallible test is that a new party can be added in order to decide all questions arising in the suit or involved in the suit. If, therefore, such questions can be decided without the proposed party, the judicial discretion vested in Court to implead parties under O.I R.10(2), C.P.C. ought not to be exercised; if so exercised, it would amount to a patent exercise of jurisdiction when it is not there. In Rasia Begum V Anwar Begum, 1959 SCR 1111 = (AIR 1958 SC 886), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the interest which the proposed party shall have in the suit to enable him to be impleaded therein, should be a direct interest and not a commercial interest. What is sought to be done in this case is that the plaintiff who has instituted a suit for partition of the suit property which is alleged to be in the joint possession of the respondent and the petitioners, applies for impleading his vendor who was originally the co-sharer in the property along with the petitioners. It cannot be said that, without the presence of the vendor of the plaintiff the issues arising in the suit and all questions involved therein cannot be decided satisfactorily. No question of avoidance of multiplicity of suit arises. The vendor has neither a direct or commercial interest in the list. It is significant to note that the petitioners are not disputing the sale or the share of the plaintiff in the suit property consequent upon such a sale. Indeed, no relief is asked for against the proposed party.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad vs Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal And Ors. on 12 January, 1968

"3. The question for my determination is, whether "the Intervenor" was a proper or necessary party to the present suit. The law on the subject can be formulated from the decisions in Firm of Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills Vs Chennimalai Gounder, AIR 1968 Mad 287, Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad Vs Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal, AIR 1969 Punj. & Har 57, (1892)1 Ch.487, Foll. & AIR 1958 A.P. 195, Ref. (sic). The principles governing the powers of the Court under O. 1, R. 10 of C.P.C. are: As a rule the Court should not add a person as a defendant in a suit when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition. The reason is that the plaintiff is the "dominus littis". He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. The word 'may' in sub rule (2) imports a discretion, the Courts will invariably take into account the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as a defendant to his suit. Under sub-para. (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, a person may be added as a party to a suit in two cases only, i.e., when he ought to have been joined and is not so joined, i.e. when he is a necessary party, or, when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. There is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit into which he seeks intrusion. A person may not be added as a defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The following tests may be formulated usefully as a guidance in the case of adding of parties, under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.; (1) If, for the adjudication of the "real controversy" between the parties on record, the presence of a third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded; (2) It is imperative to note that by such impleading of the proposed party, all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject-matter which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself; (3) The proposed party must have a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognisable in law; (4) Meticulous care should be taken to avoid the adding of a party when the addition is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other grievances of one or the other of the parties on record which is neither necessary or expedient to be considered by the Court in the pending litigation; and (5) It should always be remembered that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by Courts by adding a new party whose interest has no nexus to the subject-matter of the suit."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 48 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1