Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Impleadment Application in Partition Suit — Petitioner's Right to be Heard as Necessary Party Upheld Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 70
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dattatraya S/o Laxman Anandkar, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda, dated 30/09/2013, rejecting his application (Exh.29) under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Regular Civil Suit No.121/2009. The suit was filed by respondent No.1, Mohan S/o Laxman Anandkar, seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral property. The petitioner claimed that he had purchased 1 hectare and 20 R in Gat No.438/1 (Old Gat No.440) from the original defendant No.2, Yamunabai (respondent No.2 herein), and thus had a direct interest in the suit property. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not a necessary party. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the petitioner's presence was necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the suit, as his rights over the property would be affected by the partition decree. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of Necessary Party - Partition Suit - The petitioner sought impleadment in a partition suit claiming to be a necessary party as he had purchased part of the suit property. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the petitioner's presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit and allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 5-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be a necessary party in a partition suit, is entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda, below Exh.29 in RCS No.121/2009 is set aside. The trial court is directed to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the suit. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  • necessary party
  • partition suit
  • right to be heard
  • impleadment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 20

Writ Petition No.8821 of 2013

2014-09-30

Ravindra V. Ghuge

Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh for petitioner, Mr. H.U. Dhage for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

Dattatraya S/o Laxman Anandkar

Mohan S/o Laxman Anandkar, Yamunabai W/o Laxman Anandkar, Sangeeta W/o Ashok Zodge

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought impleadment as a party in Regular Civil Suit No.121/2009.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed to have purchased part of the suit property and was a necessary party to the partition suit.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the petitioner's application (Exh.29) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 30/09/2013.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the partition suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he had purchased 1 hectare and 20 R in Gat No.438/1 from defendant No.2 and had a direct interest in the suit property. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supported the petitioner's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who has purchased part of the suit property and whose rights would be affected by the partition decree is a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and his impleadment is necessary for effective adjudication.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph No.23 of the written statement to contend that defendant No.2 had purchased 1 hectre and 20R in Gat No.438/1 (Old Gat No.440), in the name of Yamunabai, who is respondent No.2 herein.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application (Exh.29) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in RCS No.121/2009, which was rejected by the trial court on 30/09/2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 22/10/2013, and this Court issued notice and granted ad-interim stay. After several adjournments, the matter was heard finally on 30/09/2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal for Leave to File Appeal Against Judgment in Commercial Suit Due to Lack of Locus Standi and Unexplained Delay. The court held that the appellant, not being a party to the suit, had no right to challenge the judgmen...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Impleadment Application in Partition Suit — Petitioner's Right to be Heard as Necessary Party Upheld Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.