Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.129/1993/B, filed a simple injunction suit against the Corporation of the City of Panaji (respondent no.1) seeking to restrain the Corporation from installing or permitting any structure, kiosk, etc. that would interfere with the use of the footpath on the eastern and western side of the suit property. Respondent no.2, who had a separate title suit (No.220/93/A) pending against the plaintiffs over the same suit property, filed an application for intervention under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, contending that any orders passed in the present suit might directly or indirectly affect his interest. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application, holding that if the title suit is decided in favour of respondent no.2, the decision in the present suit should bind him. The plaintiffs challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the respondent no.2 had no direct or substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit, which was only about the footpath and not the title of the property. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to fight against persons they do not propose to. The court also noted that the respondent no.2 had already filed a written statement seeking dismissal of the suit, which would prejudice the plaintiffs. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992 (2) SCC 524) and Milk Specialties Ltd. v. Rajiv Singh (2005 (11) SCC 403), the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Third Party - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Direct or Substantial Interest - The court held that a person claiming title over the suit property in a separate suit cannot be impleaded in a simple injunction suit against the Corporation where the only issue is obstruction of footpath, as the intervenor has no direct or substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to fight against persons they do not propose to. (Paras 2-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Dominus Litis - Right of Plaintiff to Choose Opponents - The court held that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to fight against persons they do not propose to. The impleadment of a third party who has no direct or substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit is not permissible. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who has a separate title suit pending over the suit property can be impleaded as a party in a simple injunction suit filed by the plaintiffs against the Corporation, where the only issue is obstruction of footpath.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 27/08/2009, thereby setting aside the impleadment of respondent no.2 as a party to the suit.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Dominus litis
- Direct or substantial interest
- Impleadment of third party
- Injunction suit
- Title suit
