Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed by the petitioners-original plaintiffs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod in Special Civil Suit No.7 of 2021 on 07.12.2022. The petitioners sought to be impleaded as parties in the suit, claiming that they were in possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.138 (old Block/survey No.99) situated at Simaliyakhurd, Taluka-Dahod for the last 60 years. The original plaintiffs (respondent Nos.6 to 9) had filed the suit asserting their possession over the same land. The trial court rejected the impleadment application on the ground that the petitioners were not necessary parties. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioners, being in possession and having a direct interest in the subject matter, are proper parties whose presence is necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application for impleadment was allowed. The court directed that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants in the suit and that the trial court proceed with the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Parties - Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC - Necessary and Proper Parties - The petitioners, claiming possession of the suit land for 60 years, sought impleadment in a suit for possession filed by the original plaintiffs. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners were not necessary parties. The High Court held that the petitioners, being in possession and having a direct interest in the subject matter, are proper parties whose presence is necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The impugned order was quashed and the application for impleadment was allowed. (Paras 6-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with an interlocutory order if it suffers from patent illegality or jurisdictional error. In the present case, the trial court's order rejecting the impleadment application was found to be erroneous and was set aside. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who claim to be in possession of the suit land, are necessary or proper parties to the suit and whether the trial court erred in rejecting their application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod below Exhibit 15 in Special Civil Suit No.7 of 2021, and allowed the application for impleadment. The petitioners are directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Impleadment of necessary and proper parties
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- 1950
