Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Pushpendrakumar Keshrilalji Sharma and Makarand Sharad Pande, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 2023, rejecting their application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for impleadment as parties. The respondent no.1, Rajendra Onkarprasad Gautam, had filed the suit against the respondent no.2, the Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against a demolition notice dated 01.03.2023 regarding alleged unauthorised construction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application claiming to be the owners of the suit property (Nazul Plot Nos.6/1, 7/1, 12, 13, 14/109) by virtue of a sale deed dated 14.10.2022 and mutation entries in their names. They sought impleadment as defendants, arguing that they were necessary parties as the suit property belonged to them. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present petition. The petitioners' counsel argued that the petitioners had a direct interest in the property and their impleadment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that they were heard before any order affecting their rights. The respondent no.1 opposed the petition, but the court found that the petitioners, being owners, had a substantial interest in the subject matter. The High Court, relying on precedents including Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Others (1996) 5 SCC 379, Ashok Babulal Avasthi v. Munna Nizamuddin Khan & Another (2024) 2 Mah.LJ 322, and Ashok Babarao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022), held that the petitioners were necessary parties to the suit. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application for impleadment, directing the trial court to add the petitioners as defendants in the suit. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and Proper Party - Petitioners claiming ownership of suit property sought impleadment in a suit filed by respondent no.1 against Municipal Corporation for declaration and injunction against demolition notice - The trial court rejected the application - Held that the petitioners, being owners of the property, have a direct interest in the subject matter and are necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure effective adjudication - The impugned order was set aside and the application was allowed (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, claiming ownership of the suit property, are necessary or proper parties to the suit filed by respondent no.1 against the Municipal Corporation seeking declaration and injunction against demolition notice, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting their application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 18.04.2024 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. The trial court is directed to add the petitioners as defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 2023. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Impleadment of owners in suit regarding property
- Right to be heard before demolition
