Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 238 (ALL)

Shitla Prasad v. Mata Swaroop

1979-02-28

A.N.VERMA

body1979
JUDGMENT : A.N. VERMA, J. 1. This application in Revision is directed against orders passed by the courts below permitting the opposite parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the Plaintiff-applicants. By an order dated 17.12.1977, the court below has directed the impleadment of the opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 10 as Defendants in the suit. By the second order dated 10.4.1978, the court below has rejected an application filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant for review of its order dated 17.12.1977. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision are these. The Plaintiff-applicant filed Suit No. 46 of 1977 against one Mata Swaroop for specific performance of contract for sale of certain property. The assertion of the Plaintiff-applicant was that there was a written agreement between him and Mata Swaroop for sale of the property in suit in favour of the Plaintiff and that Mata Swaroop was wrongly refusing to execute the sale-deed. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 10 filed an application for impleadment asserting that Mata Swaroop had executed two agreements, one registered and another unregistered in their favour for the transfer of the said property in their favour and consequently, they were necessary and proper parties to be impleaded in the suit. 4. The court below by its order dated 21.12.1977 allowed this application on the ground that the impleadment of opposite parties 2 to 12 would be necessary for a proper adjudication of the rights of the parties in the circumstances of the present case. The court below also observed that impleadment of these persons as Defendants in the suit would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the court below exercising power under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-rule (2) of the CPC directed the impleadment of the opposite-parties 2 to 10 as Defendants. 5. Subsequently, the Plaintiff-applicant filed the application by its review of the order of the court below dated 17.12.1977. The court below has rejected the said application by its order dated 10.4.1978 on the ground that there was no ground for recalling the order dated 17.12.1977. The present application is directed against the aforesaid two orders passed by the court below. 6. The court below has rejected the said application by its order dated 10.4.1978 on the ground that there was no ground for recalling the order dated 17.12.1977. The present application is directed against the aforesaid two orders passed by the court below. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that the Plaintiff-applicant could not be compelled to implead any party against his wishes and that the court below had no jurisdiction to direct the impleadment of these parties. Learned Counsel argued that no relief could be granted to the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 in the present suit and consequently their impleadment as Defendant was justified. 7. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no force in this revision and is liable to be dismissed. The court below has directed the impleadment of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 on the ground that for a proper adjudication of the rights of the parties, their presence would be necessary and further that their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of decisions. The opposite-parties 2 to 10 had sought impleadment in the suit on the ground that in regard to the very property which is the subject matter of the suit, Mata Swaroop from whom the Plaintiff-applicant is claiming an agreement for sale of the properties in suit, has executed agreement in favour of Defendants 2 to 10. That being so, in my view in order that the controversy with regard to the property in dispute as to which of these claimants are entitled to have the sale deed executed in their favour in regard to the property in suit, may be disposed off effectually and finally and Settled all the questions involved in the suit, the presence of opposite-parties 2 to 10 was necessary or at least proper. The courts below did have jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-rule (2) of the CPC to allow the impleadment of opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 10. It has not committed any errors of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment of these persons. Nor can it be said that the discretion exercised by the trial court in directing the impleadment of these persons as Defendants 2 to 10 in the suit has been exercised improperly or in an arbitrary manner. 8. 2 to 10. It has not committed any errors of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment of these persons. Nor can it be said that the discretion exercised by the trial court in directing the impleadment of these persons as Defendants 2 to 10 in the suit has been exercised improperly or in an arbitrary manner. 8. As regards the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-applicant that no relief could be granted to opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 in the present case if they succeeded, in my view that is not the proper way of looking at the things. Simply because no relief could be granted to a person seeking impleadment in the suit, it cannot be argued that such a person cannot be impleaded in a suit as a Defendant. What is to be seen is whether presence of a person seeking to be impleaded in the suit is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In my view, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff-applicant. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-applicant cited in support of his submission a case reported in Bashir Ahmad vs. Aziz Khan, 1963 AWR 718. In that case, a learned Judge of this Court has held that a Plaintiff cannot be asked to implead in suit some one against whom he claims no relief. The learned Judge further observed that where the presence of the Defendant was not at all necessary as his rights were not jeopardized by the proceedings, the court acted without jurisdiction in impleading him as party. On the facts of that case, the learned Judge was perfectly correct, if I may say so with respect, in holding that in such a case, the impleadment of a party of that description was without jurisdiction. On the facts of the present case, however, I am clearly of the view that the impleadment of Defendant Nos. 2 to 10 was necessary or at least proper for effectually and completely disposing off the dispute between the parties with regard to the property in suit and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court below has committed no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. 9. 2 to 10 was necessary or at least proper for effectually and completely disposing off the dispute between the parties with regard to the property in suit and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court below has committed no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. 9. So far as the second order is concerned, the court below has rightly held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of order dated 17.12.1977. I am in agreement with the view of the court below. 10. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs.