Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Manidhari Air Products, challenged the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, allowing an application filed by respondent no.1 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.) to add the petitioner as defendant no.2 in Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2004. The suit was originally filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 (M/s Maharashtra Air Products Pvt. Ltd.) for recovery of electricity dues of Rs. 6,90,494.18 with 18% interest. The electricity connection was given to respondent no.2 under an agreement dated 18.03.2000, but dues remained unpaid from July 2001, leading to disconnection. During the pendency of the suit, on 26.08.2013, respondent no.1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, stating that a bailiff report dated 06.02.2011 revealed that respondent no.2 was not found at its address for the last 10 years and that the petitioner was in possession of the premises. The trial court allowed the application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined whether the addition was justified. The court noted that the petitioner was in possession of the premises and that the suit was for recovery of dues in respect of the electricity connection at that premises. The court held that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion to add the petitioner as a party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute. The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Addition of Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and Proper Party - The court considered whether a person in possession of the suit premises can be added as a party in a suit for electricity dues when the original defendant is not traceable - Held that the trial court correctly exercised discretion to add the petitioner as defendant no.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute (Paras 2, 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2 in a suit for recovery of electricity dues originally filed against respondent no.2.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the trial court allowing the addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Addition of parties
- Necessary and proper party
- Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings
- Electricity dues recovery
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 104
Writ Petition No.1482 of 2017
Mr. M.P. Khajanchi for petitioner, Mr. S.V. Purohit for respondent no.1
M/s Manidhari Air Products, through its Proprietor, Surendra s/o Tarachandji Khajanchi
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (Original Plaintiff) and M/s Maharashtra Air Products Pvt. Ltd. (Original Defendant No.1)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the trial court allowing addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2 in a suit for recovery of electricity dues.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the trial court allowing his addition as defendant no.2.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was added as a party in a suit for recovery of electricity dues based on a bailiff report showing that the original defendant was not traceable and the petitioner was in possession of the premises.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the application for addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2 under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was not a necessary or proper party to the suit.
Respondent no.1 argued that the petitioner was in possession of the premises and the suit was for recovery of dues in respect of the electricity connection at that premises, making his addition necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add the petitioner as a party to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as the petitioner was in possession of the premises and the suit concerned electricity dues in respect of that premises.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur (trial Court), was justified in allowing an application moved by respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) for addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2 in a suit for recovery of amount towards electricity dues originally filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 (original defendant no.1).
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2004 on 30.10.2004 for recovery of electricity dues against respondent no.2. On 26.08.2013, respondent no.1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to add the petitioner as defendant no.2. The trial court allowed the application. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.1482 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 01.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10, Section 151
