Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3950 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sallan And 8 Others Respondent :- Suraiya Begum Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Agrawal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 4 of 2017 (Sallan and others Vs. Suraiya Begum) wherein the Revisional Court has rejected the Substitution Application moved by the applicants, arrayed as petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/7, who are sons of Sallan on the ground of delay.
2. It has been argued by the counsel for petitioners that the delay was satisfactorily explained, which the learned Revisional Court has not considered while rejecting the Substitution Application Paper No. 33-Ga filed under Section 34(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in Mohd. Rafiq Rajbi Vs. Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge - Ist, Varanasi and others, 1999 (2) SCC 834 wherein it was held that an application for substitution can be entertained even if there is no specific provision in exercise of power under Section 151 of C.P.C. There can even be an addition of parties against the wishes of plaintiff if one who is to be impleaded is a necessary or a proper party.
4. The underlying principle under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the person who is seeking impleadment should be directly or legally interested in the action. Once such a person is impleaded, he shall be bound by the result of the action and the question required to be settled in the action/proceeding would be effectually and completely settled between the parties. In another words, the cause of action/proceedings and the answer to the same if affects or prejudices legal rights of a person he must be allowed to join the proceedings.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR 1353 has held as follows:-
"2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
5. The petitioner has made out a case for interference in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, this petition is being finally disposed of by setting aside the order dated 05.05.2018 and remanding the matter to the learned Revsional Court to consider afresh the application for condonation of delay and the application for substitution moved by the applicants.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 LBY