Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Sri A.G. Shivaprakash, filed a suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No.89/2013) before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunigal, seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit schedule property, an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 100/7 situated at Alkere Village, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that the property was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.1971, and after his father's death on 14.10.2007, the property was partitioned among the family members, and the suit schedule property fell to his share under a Panchayath Parikath dated 18.02.2010, with mutation entries made in his name. The plaintiff impleaded the jurisdictional police officer (defendant No.8) as a party, apprehending interference from him. The trial court, by order dated 15.3.2013, directed the plaintiff to strike out the name of defendant No.8 from the cause title. The plaintiff challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court considered the question of whether the police officer is a necessary or proper party. The court noted that the test for a necessary party is that no decree can be passed without his presence, while a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for the complete and final adjudication of the dispute. The High Court held that the police officer is a proper party as he is the jurisdictional police officer and the plaintiff apprehends interference from him. The court set aside the trial court order and allowed the plaintiff to continue with the suit against the police officer, observing that the presence of the police officer would enable the court to pass an effective decree and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Striking out party - Necessary party - Proper party - The trial court directed the plaintiff to strike out the name of the police officer (defendant No.8) from the cause title in a suit for permanent injunction. The High Court held that the police officer is a proper party as he is the jurisdictional police officer and the plaintiff apprehends interference from him. The court set aside the trial court order and allowed the plaintiff to continue with the suit against the police officer. (Paras 1-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Necessary party - Proper party - The test for a necessary party is that no decree can be passed without his presence. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for the complete and final adjudication of the dispute. The High Court held that the police officer is a proper party as his presence would enable the court to pass an effective decree and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in directing the plaintiff to strike out the name of the police officer (defendant No.8) from the cause title in a suit for permanent injunction, and whether the police officer is a necessary or proper party to the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunigal in O.S. No.89/2013, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit without striking out the name of defendant No.8.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Injunction suit
- Police officer as party
- Striking out party
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
