Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13009 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Bansal Alias Malle Respondent :- Smt. Kiran Bansal And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Ram Dube,Shobhit Dubey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra in PA Case No. 31 of 2013 (Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. Gopal Das) for a direction to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
2. The counsel for petitioner, Shri Anant Ram Dube has pointed out to this Court the contents of application for impleadment moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court wherein it has been specifically stated that the landlady Kiran Devi and others were claiming ownership over the property in dispute on the basis of a forged Will and therefore, the petitioner in whose favour another Will by the erstwhile owner of the property, Smt. Shanti Devi, had been made out, had filed an O.S. No. 231 of 2013 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Dinesh Chandra, Asha Bansal, Harish Chandra and Kiran Devi on 04.03.2012 in which the plaintiff- respondents herein had also put in appearance. In this suit the petitioner had claimed for declaration of ownership over the property No. 6/134, Southern Gate, Tajganj, Agra.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the observations made by the learned Court below in the order impugned rejecting the application for impleadment on the ground that since the SCC Suit is a summary proceedings and no title is decided, if and when the O.S. No. 231 of 2013 is decided in favour of the applicant, he would become the owner of the property in question and thus, entitled for all benefits arising out of the current litigation in PA Case No. 31 of 2013.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has also pointed out the observations made by this Court 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 be an addition of parties against the wishes of plaintiff if one who is to be impleaded is a necessary or a proper party. 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.
5. It has been argued by Shri A.R. Dube that the petitioner was not a stranger to the proceedings and in order to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation it was appropriate that his application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C should be allowed by the learned Trial Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case. However, this Court, finding that in the order impugned dated 12.04.2018 that only an application for impleadment has been rejected. It would not be apopriate to issue a notice to the opposite parties and keep the matter pending in this Court.
7. This petition is being finally disposed of by setting aside the order dated 12.04.2018 and remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court to consider afresh the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 LBY