Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a civil appeal arising from a suit for declaration of ownership filed by the first respondent on October 30, 1981, claiming absolute ownership of 6 acres and 25 gunthas of land situated at Raichur. During the pendency of the suit, the appellants got themselves impleaded as defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Despite repeated adjournments, the appellants did not file a written statement, and the trial court forfeited their right to file one. However, they later filed a written statement voluntarily, in which paragraph 12 stated that they reserved their rights to recover their share of compensation amount from the court acquiring the land in Survey No.686, and they also sought dismissal of the suit. The first respondent, in the plaint, had not sought any relief against the appellants. Subsequently, the first respondent was not prepared to proceed against the appellants, and the trial court passed an order dismissing the suit as against the appellants. The appellants challenged that order before the Supreme Court, contending that the order dismissing the suit as against them would disentitle them from claiming any relief in the matter. The Supreme Court found no force in that contention. It noted that the first respondent had not sought permission under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC to have the suit dismissed with liberty to file a fresh suit. Since the plaint itself did not seek any relief against the appellants, and since the appellants had specifically reserved their right to take appropriate proceedings, the permission granted by the trial court dismissing the suit as against the appellants could not be said to be vitiated by any error of law. The Court also observed that the suit had been pending for years and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. It further directed that if anybody had filed or files any application for impleadment, such application was to be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment and Withdrawal of Suit - Dismissal of suit against impleaded defendants does not require Order 23 Rule 1 CPC permission when plaint seeks no relief against them and defendants reserved their rights - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 1 - The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of ownership of suit land without seeking any relief against the appellants; the appellants got themselves impleaded as defendants and in their written statement reserved their right to recover their share of compensation amount. The plaintiff was not prepared to proceed against the appellants, and the trial court dismissed the suit as against them. Held that the permission granted by the court dismissing the suit as against the appellants was not vitiated by any error of law because the plaintiff did not seek permission under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit, and the appellants' rights were preserved for appropriate proceedings. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order dismissing the suit as against the impleaded defendants/appellants was vitiated by error of law and would disentitle them from claiming any relief.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously; any application for impleadment to be dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- Order 23 Rule 1 CPC does not apply when plaintiff does not seek relief against impleaded defendants
- dismissal of suit against impleaded defendants does not disentitle them from seeking relief in appropriate proceedings
- impleaded defendants may reserve their rights in written statement
- court's permission to dismiss suit against impleaded defendants not vitiated by error of law
