Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, Shrimati Devi/respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Original Suit No.110 of 1993 before the court concerned. In the said matter, an application has been moved by the petitioner for impleadment as a party, allowed by order dated 19.01.2012.
Aggrieved by the said order, Shrimati Devi/plaintiff filed a Civil Revision No.120 of 2013, allowed by order dated 21.12.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur with the observation that the on the material on record, the position which emerges out is that prima facie, on the basis of the registered sale deed 12.06.1987, Shrimati Devi is the owner and possession of the property which is a subject matter in a litigation in the pending suit and finding was also given by the revisional court that prima facie, it was also found that the petitioner has got no right or title on the property in question, so there is no justification or reason to implead as a party in the matter in view of the provisions as provided under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the records, it is necessary to go through the provisions as provided under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., reads as under :-
""Court may stirke out or add parties.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. "
From the perusal of order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, it covers two types of of cases:-
(a) of a party who ought to have been joined but not joined and is a necessary party, and
(b) of a party without whose presence the question involved in the case cannot be completely decided.
The former is called a necessary party and the latter a proper party. Sub-R. (2) of O.1, R.10, therefore, is attracted when the question is covered by one of the above. A party seeking such a joinder as a proper party will have to prima facie establish that such a party has interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and as such should be before the Court.
The simple test in such controversy would be as to whether the presence of such a party is appropriate in view of the subject-matter in adjudication. If the answer be in the affirmative, joinder can be permitted. By reason of direct interest in the subject-matter or even by reason of eventual reliefs sought, such a test would be answered. Power being there, it is all a matter of appreciation of the controversy in issue and its possible ramifications.
O. 1, R. 10 (2), C.P. Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court to deal with any such situation which may result in prejudicing the interest of affected party if not impleaded in the suit and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit. It is true that the discretion has to be exercised judicially but at the same time the concerned civil or appellate court where the suit on appeal is pending has also to take into consideration that the party which is necessary to be impleaded will be put to a greater difficulty if not impleaded by the plaintiff who may have ulterior motives of not impleading such party and if the decision is given which may affect the interest of the said party greater prejudice would be caused to the said party as a result of not impleading while no prejudice or loss would be caused to the plaintiff because he will have full opportunity to defend his rights and interest as against aggrieved party who has been impleaded as a party to the suit.
The important aspect which should be looked into by the Civil Courts while deciding the applications under O.1, R.10(2), C.P. Code is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also conflicting decisions being passed in different suits which will be safeguarded as a result of allowing necessary party to be impleaded in the suit (See Baijnath v. Ganga Devi A.I.R. 1998 Raj. 125).
The expression "to settle all questions involved" used in O.1, R.10(2), is susceptive of liberal and wide interpretation so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject-matter thereof.
The Parliament in its wisdom while framing this rule must have thought that all the material questions common to the parties to the suit and to the third parties should be tried once for all and the Court is clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result with judicious discretion to add parties, including third parties (See Abdul Jaleel v. Aishabi A.I.R. 1992 Karn. 380).
The word "At any stage" in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC means that there is no requirement of law that an application for addition of a party as defendant must be made at any particular stage of the trial though in a given case delay in moving an application might be one of the considerations for the decision (See. Gurmauj Saran v. Joyce C. Salim A.I.R. 1990 Del. 13 (D.B.).
The use of the expression "at any stage of proceedings" in O.1, R.10(2) shows that the power vested in the Court under it can be exercised only when the proceedings before it are alive and still pending. Once the adjudication itself of all the disputes in the case is over, this provision cannot be made use of by any party (See Sardar Ali Khan v. Special Deputy Collector A.I.R. 1973 Andh. Pra. 298 (D.B.).
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., the power to add a party to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right.
Thus, in view of the above said facts, the finding given by the revisional court, I do not find any good ground or reason to interfere in the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur in Civil Revision No.120 of 2013.
In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 05.05.2014 Mahesh