Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sitaram Deorao Pawar and Totaram Deorao Pawar, filed two separate writ petitions challenging an order dated 6/11/2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (JD), Buldhana, in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 4 of 1986 and 6 of 1986. The impugned order allowed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the respondents (Rupabai Wd/o Gundulal Khatri and others) seeking to be added as parties to the suits. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the original suits, contended that the respondents are not necessary parties and their impleadment would change the nature of the suit. The respondents argued that they are co-owners of the suit property and their presence is necessary for effective adjudication. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the trial court's order, holding that the respondents have a direct interest in the suit property and their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of suits. The court noted that there are five suits pending in relation to the same property and that consolidation of suits had already been ordered. The court found that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Parties - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and Proper Party - The court allowed impleadment of co-owners who claimed title to the suit property, holding that their presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The court reasoned that the applicants have a direct interest in the subject matter and their impleadment would not change the nature of the suit. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents (co-owners) are necessary or proper parties to the suit for possession and whether their impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the trial court's order allowing impleadment of the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- necessary party
- proper party
- multiplicity of suits
- effective adjudication
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 96
Writ Petition No. 4709 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 4711 of 2003
Shri A.S. Kilor for the petitioner, Shri R.L. Khapre for the respondents
Sitaram Deorao Pawar and Totaram Deorao Pawar
Rupabai Wd/o Gundulal Khatri & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging an order allowing impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in suits for possession.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (plaintiffs) sought to quash the order allowing impleadment of respondents as parties to the suits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order allowing the respondents to be added as parties, arguing they are not necessary parties.
Previous Decisions
The Joint Civil Judge (JD), Buldhana, allowed the applications for impleadment on 6/11/2003.
Issues
Whether the respondents are necessary or proper parties to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondents are not necessary parties and their impleadment would change the nature of the suit.
Respondents argued that they are co-owners of the suit property and their presence is necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondents, being co-owners claiming title to the suit property, have a direct interest in the subject matter and their impleadment is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The trial court's discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was correctly exercised.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these Writ Petitions challenge identical order passed on 6/11/2003 by Joint Civic Judge (JD), Buldhana, in Regular Civic Suit Nos. 4 of 1986 and 6 of1986.
The respondents in both these writ petitions moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, for adding them as parties in these suits.
Procedural History
The respondents filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 4 of 1986 and 6 of 1986. The Joint Civil Judge (JD), Buldhana, allowed those applications on 6/11/2003. The petitioners (plaintiffs) challenged the order by filing Writ Petition Nos. 4709 of 2003 and 4711 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard both sides and dismissed the petitions on 12/12/2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
