Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Civil Matter Regarding Impleading of Co-Plaintiff. The Trial Court's order to implead a temple as co-plaintiff was found improper under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by M. Venkata Raju against Teegala Annapurna for arrears of rent. During the proceedings, Teegala Annapurna sought to implead the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple as a co-plaintiff, which the Trial Court initially allowed. However, this order was challenged and set aside by the High Court, which remitted the matter back to the Trial Court. Upon re-evaluation, the Trial Court again permitted the Temple to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff, asserting that the property in question belonged to the Temple. M. Venkata Raju subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, found the impleading of the Temple as a co-plaintiff to be improper under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that while parties can be impleaded for complete justice, the current situation was unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the Trial Court's and the High Court's orders, allowing the appeal but leaving the door open for the Temple to apply to be impleaded as a party defendant. The Court made no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Impleading of Parties - Improper Impleading as Co-Plaintiff - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 - The Trial Court's order to implead Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple as a co-plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent was found to be improper and unsustainable. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of both the Trial Court and the High Court, allowing the appeal while permitting the Temple to apply for impleading as a party defendant instead (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order to implead Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple as a co-plaintiff was proper under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, while permitting the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple to apply to be impleaded as a party defendant.

Law Points

  • Impleading parties
  • Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  • Article 227 Constitution
  • Trial Court jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (05) 229

Civil Appeal No. 3349 of 2008

2008-05-06

A.K. Mathur, Aftab Alam

P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya, Rohit Rao N., Roshmani, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh, Y. Vismai, B.V. Niren, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Sudha Gupta

M. Venkata Raju

Teegala Annapurna & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent

Remedy Sought

M. Venkata Raju sought to quash the order allowing the Temple to be a co-plaintiff

Filing Reason

Challenging the Trial Court's order permitting the Temple's impleading

Previous Decisions

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and remitted the matter back

Issues

Improper impleading of co-plaintiff Jurisdiction under Article 227

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the impleading was improper under CPC. The respondent contended that the Temple's inclusion was necessary for justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the impleading of the Temple as a co-plaintiff was improper under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing the need for proper party alignment in civil suits.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. It appears to us to be improper under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Procedural History

The Trial Court allowed the impleading of the Temple, which was challenged and set aside by the High Court, leading to a writ petition by M. Venkata Raju.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Writ Appeals Challenging Pension Revision Order — Upholds Distinction Between Government and Transport Corporation Pensioners.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Police Constable for Misconduct and Unauthorized Absence. The Court Found that Acquittal in Criminal Case Does Not Preclude Disciplinary Proceedings Under Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Se...