Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Orbit Corporate Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 9-2-2012 passed by the Judge of City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, rejecting its application for impleadment (Chamber Summons No.123 of 2012) in S.C. Suit (L) No.273 of 2012. The suit was filed by respondent nos.1 to 7 (tenants) against respondent nos.8 to 10 (Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Board) challenging a notice issued under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioner claimed to be a developer and sought to be impleaded as a defendant. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party to the suit. The suit was between the tenants and MHADA, and the petitioner had no legal right or interest in the suit property. The court noted that the petitioner's presence was not required for the complete and effective adjudication of the suit. The court also observed that the petitioner could not claim any right to be heard merely because it might be affected by the outcome of the suit. The court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order and dismissed the petition. The court, however, clarified that the petitioner could apply for impleadment if it had any independent right or interest in the property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment - Necessary and Proper Party - The court held that a person who is not a necessary or proper party to the suit has no right to be impleaded. The petitioner, a company, claimed to be a developer but had no legal right or interest in the suit property as the suit was between tenants and MHADA. The court found that the petitioner's presence was not required for the complete and effective adjudication of the suit. (Paras 4-6) B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to examine the impugned order rejecting the impleadment application. The court held that the trial court's order was not perverse or illegal and did not warrant interference. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a company, is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit filed by the tenants against MHADA challenging the notice issued under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the impleadment application. The court held that the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party to the suit and that the trial court's order was not perverse or illegal.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Impleadment
- Right to be heard
- Article 227 Constitution of India
