Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, original Plaintiff, filed a suit (S.C. Suit No.1830 of 2010) in the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2) seeking a declaration that they were rank trespassers in respect of Shop No.9, Nakhuda Building, and for possession and compensation. The Plaintiff claimed that the suit premises were owned by a trust of which he was a trustee, and that the premises were previously tenanted to M/s. Kitabi Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were illegally occupying the premises. Respondent No.3 (M/s. Kitabi Traders) filed Chamber Summons No.1079 of 2012 seeking impleadment, claiming to be the monthly tenant in possession. The Trial Court allowed the impleadment. The Plaintiff challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the applicant (Respondent No.3) had a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, as it claimed tenancy rights and possession. The Court noted that the suit sought possession and that the applicant's rights would be directly affected. The Court found no error in the Trial Court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition, upholding the impleadment order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Direct Interest - The applicant claiming to be a tenant in possession of the suit premises has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit for eviction and possession, as his rights would be affected by the outcome. The Trial Court's order allowing impleadment was upheld. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application for impleadment filed by the applicant claiming to be a tenant in possession of the suit premises, in a suit for eviction filed against alleged trespassers.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Trial Court's order allowing impleadment of Respondent No.3.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Impleadment
- Necessary and Proper Party
- Direct Interest in Subject Matter
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Writ Petition No.3370 of 2013
Mr. G. S. Godbole with Mr. G.R.Mishra and Mr. A. M. Shinde for the Petitioners, Mr. A. N. Nasikwala i/b Ms Z. A. Lakdawala for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Kunal Bhange for the Respondent No.3
Anzar Ahmed, Anwar Ahmed, M/s. Kitabi Traders
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment in a suit for eviction and possession.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original Plaintiff) sought to quash the Trial Court's order allowing impleadment of Respondent No.3.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order dated 15-4-2013 allowing Chamber Summons No.1079 of 2012 filed by Respondent No.3 for impleadment in S.C. Suit No.1830 of 2010.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court allowed the impleadment application.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the impleadment of Respondent No.3 in the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Respondent No.3 had no direct interest in the suit as the suit was against trespassers.
Respondent No.3 contended that it was the tenant in possession and had a direct interest in the subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi
A person claiming a right to possession as a tenant has a direct interest in the subject matter of a suit for eviction and possession, and is entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant claiming to be a tenant in possession of the suit premises has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit for eviction and possession, as his rights would be affected by the outcome.
Procedural History
The Plaintiff filed S.C. Suit No.1830 of 2010 in the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for eviction and possession. Respondent No.3 filed Chamber Summons No.1079 of 2012 for impleadment, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 15-4-2013. The Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.3370 of 2013 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 1 Rule 10
