Court cannot entertain or decide time barred appeal on merits. Court cannot entertain or decide time barred appeal on merits. iqjksfgr] lnL; & ;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e 1955 ¼la{ksi esa vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 230 ds varxZr mi[k.M vf/kdkjh e.My ftyk HkhyokM+k ds fu.kZ; fnukad 5-12-2000 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- izdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS fd orZeku vizkFkhZx.k 1 yxk;r 5 us vizkFkhZ la- 6 yxk;r 8 ds fo:) mi[k.M vf/kdkjh HkhyokM+k ds U;k;ky; esa ,d jktLo okn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 88] 53 o 54 ds rgr fookfnr vkjkth ds ckcr~ isk fd;k] tks fopkjk/khu gSA okn ds fopkjk/khu jgrs orZeku izkFkhZ us ,d izkFkZuk i= varxZr vknsk 1 fu;e 10 tk-nh- dk i{kdkj cuk, tkus gsrq isk fd;k] ftls mUgksaus vius vknsk fnukad 5-12-2002 }kjk vLohdkj dj fn;k ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh isk dh xbZ gSA 3- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk dFku gS fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 ls 5 ds ifr@firk HkS: dk bl fookfnr Hkwfe esa fgLlk Fkk ,oa mls :i, dh vko;drk gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 3-2-1994 dks vius fgLls dh Hkwfe izkFkhZ ds gd esa jgu j[kdj izkFkhZ dks dCtk fn;k ,oa 30000@& rhl gtkj :i;s izkIr fd,A lkFk gh esa vuqcaf/kr Hkh fd;k fd nks lky esa ;g Hkwfe NqM+ok ysxk ,oa vof/k fudy tkus ij vkjkft;kr dk fcdko ekuk tk,xkA bl izdkj jgu dh vof/k fudy tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds gd esa mDr vuqca/k ds vuqlkj Lor% fodz; gksdj izkFkhZ dks Hkwfe ds vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;s gSA bl dkj.k mDr okn esa og vko;d i{kdkj gS ysfdu rgr vnkyr us izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s i{kdkj cuus ds izkFkZuk i= dks fujLr djus esa dkuwuh Hkwy dh gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd blh Hkwfe ds ckcr~ iwoZ esa okn la- 103@2000 HkS: us isk fd;k Fkk rFkk HkS: us mDr okn esa izkFkhZ dks i{kdkj cuk;k gS ftlls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dk ml fookfnr Hkwfe esa fgr fufgr gSA og izdj.k esa vko;d i{kdkj gSA 4- vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dk bl fookfnr Hkwfe ls dksbZ laca/k ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ us ;g Hkwfe jgu ds crkSj yh Fkh u fd fodz; gsrq ,oa o"kZ 1994 esa jgu j[kuk crk;k x;k gS tks jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj 2 o"kZ esa vius vki gh jgu lekIr gks pqdk gS rFkk bl okn esa izkFkhZg dks i{kdkj ugha cukrs gq, izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks [kkfjt djus esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ugha dh xbZ gSA 5- geusa nksuksa i{kdkjku ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqus rFkk miyC/k i=koyh dk Hkh voyksdu fd;kA 6- lh-ih-lh- ds vknsk 1 fu;e 10 ds varxZr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vko;d i{kdkj cuk;k tk ldrk gs ;fn og fookn dh fo"k; oLrq esa dkuwuh fgr j[rk gksA bl vkk; dk fl)kUr ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1968 enzkl ist 142 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA 7- orZeku izdj.k eas izkFkhZ dk ;fn dkuwuh fgr yfEcr okn esa uhfgr gS rks mls i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko;d gS vkSj ;fn dkuwuh fgr uhfgr ugha gS rks mls i{kdkj cukus dh vko;drk ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g izdV fd;k x;k fd fookfnr Hkwfe dks vizkFkhZ la- 1 ls 5 ds ifr@firk HkS: }kjk 30 gtkj :i;s ysdj fnukad 3-2-1993 dks jgu j[kdj mls dCtk fn;k x;k Fkk ,oa nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa jgu dks ugha NqM+kus dh fLFkfr esa mDr vkjkft;kr ds fcdko dk gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa bl fuxjkuh esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vafre :i ls fu.kZ; ;g fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS fd mDr jgu dk bl okn esa D;k vlj iM+sxk\ ml jgu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vafre :i ls vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;s gS ;k ugha] ;g rks okn ds fu.kZ; esa r; gksxk ysfdu tc Lo;a vizkFkhZ us mls jgu ds rF;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;k gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ dk mDr fookfnr Hkwfe ls dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugha gS vFkok mldk dksbZ fgr bl okn esa fuf.kZr ugha gksuk gSA 8- fof/k dk ;g loZekU; fl)kUr gS fd oknh dh bPNk ds fo:) fdlh O;fDr dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk D;ksafd oknh nkos dk ekfyd gksrk gSA ysfdu blds lkFk gh ;fn fdlh okn esa fdlh ,sls O;fDr dk fgr tqM+k gqvk gks tks ml okn esa i{kdkj ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ml O;fDr dks i{kdkj cukuk vko;d gS ftlls fd ^^Multipilicity of Procedings** iSnk u gksA fdlh Hkh fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds [kjhnnkj ds laca/k esa ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1999 ,l-lh- ist 876 lkfo=h nsoh cuke~ ftyk tt xksj[kiqj ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd nkos esa [kjhnnkj vko;d i{kdkj gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ gkykafd izR;{k :i ls fookfnr Hkwfe dk [kjhnnkj ugha gS ysfdu jgu ls lacaf/kr mld vf/kdkjksa dk fu.kZ; bl okn esa gks] ftlds fy, vko;d gS fd mls bl nkos esa i{kdkj cuk;k tk; gkykafd vafre :i ls izkFkhZ dks bl okn esa dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIrk gksxk ;k ugha] ;g rks nkos esa r; gksxkA vknsk 1 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kku U;k;ky; dks O;kid kfDr;ka iznku djrs gS ftlesa xyr oknh ds uke dks lgh djuk] i{kdkjksa ds uke dkVuk ;k tksM+u rFkk izfroknh ds tksM+us ij okn i= esa lakks/ku dh dk;Zokgh djuh gS tks ,d egRoiw.kZ lEca/k gS tks O;kogkfjd n`f"V ls cgqr mi;ksxh izko/kku gSA i{kdkjksa dks tksM+us ds fy;s nks krksZa dk gksuk vko;d gS% ¼1½ tc fdlh O;fDr dk uke oknh ;k izfroknh ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj mls bl :i esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼2½ tc mldh mifLFkfr ds fcuk okn ds izuksa dk iwjh rjg ls fuiVkjk ugha gks ldrk gksA 9- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ft;k csxe cuke~ vuoj csxe ¼,-vkbZ-vkj- 1958 ,l-lh- ist 886½ esa i{kdkjksa ds la;kstu ds izu ij fopkj djrs gq, bl laca/k esa lEiw.kZ fof/k dk foospu djrs gq, cryk;k gS fd% ^^¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vknsk 1 ds fu;e 10 ds v/khu i{kdkjksa ds tksM+us dk izu lk/kkj.k;k U;k;ky; dh izkjfEHkd vf/kdkfjrk dk u gksdj U;kf;d foosd dk gS] ftls fdlh foks"k ekeys ds lHkh rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[kdj iz;ksx esa ysuk gksxk] ijUrq dqN ekeyksa esa U;k;ky; dh vUrfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ds izfrdwy varj crkrs gq, fooknk mRiUu gks ldrk gSA nwljs kCnksa esa] ml vf/kdkfjrk ds ckjs esa tks /kkjk 115 ds v/khu lhfer vFkZ esa iz;qDr dh xbZ gS] ¼2½ lEifr laca/kh okn esa fdlh O;fDr dks ,d i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr ¼tksM+us½ djus ds fy, ml O;fDr dk lafookn ds fo"k; esa lh/kk fgr gksuk pkfg,] tks mlds O;kikfjd fgr ls fHkUu gksxkA ¼3½ tgka lafookn dh fo"k; lkexzh fdlh izkfLFkfr ¼gSfl;r½ ;k fof/kd Lo:i ds ckjs esa ?kks"k.kk djuk gks] rks orZeku ;k lh/ks fgr ds fu;e dks mfpr ekeyksa esa fkfFkr fd;k tk ldrk gS] tgka U;k;ky; dk ;g vfHker gks fd ml i{kdkj dks tksM+us ls og ¼U;k;ky;½ ml fookn ds ckjs esa izHkkoiw.kZ rFkk iw.kZ :i ls fu.kZ; djus ds fy, vf/kd vPNh fLFkfr esa gksxkA** bl /kkjk 10¼2½ esa okn ds varoZfyr lHkh izuksa dh kCnkoyh dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS ftldk vFkZ gS ^^lafookn ds i{kdkjksa ds chp ds izuksa vFkkZr~ & tgka ,d vksj ls LFkkfir fd;s vf/kdkj vkSj ekaxs x;s vuqrks"k rFkk nwljh vksj mudks vLohdkj djus ;k jksdu ls lacaf/kr izu ls gSA blesa os izu ugha gS tks lgoknh ds chp ;k okn esa 68@enzkl i{kdkj vkSj r`rh; ¼ckgjh½ i{kdkj ds chp ds izu gSA oknh dks ;g vf/kdkj gS fd og i{kdkj ,oa U;k;ky; dk pquko djsA oknh dks lnk ;g NwV gS fd og ,sls i{kdkj dks izfroknh cuk;s ftls og mfpr o lgh ekurk gSA oknh dk okn dk Lokeh ¼dominum litiz½ gS mls mu yksxksa ds lkFk yM+us dks ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftuls o u rks yM+uk pkgrk gS vkSj u dksbZ vuqrks"k pkgrk gSA fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vFkok ugha cuk;k tkuk ;g U;k;ky; dk foosdkf/kdkj gS vkSj izfdz;k U;k; dh lsfodk gS u fd Lokfeuh vkSj izfdz;kRed vfu;ferrk ;k xyrh ls U;k; ds lkjHkwr fgr /oLr ugha gksus fn;s tk lds fd tc rd fd ;g nfkZr ugha dj fn;k tkos fd vfu;ferrk ds dkj.k vU; i{kdkj vifjgk;Z :i ls izfrdwy fLFkfr esa iM+ x;k gSA 10- ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd tgka U;k;ky; dks okn esa vurokZfyr lHkh izuksa dk izHkko vkSj iw.kZ :i ls U;k; fu.kZ; vkSj fuiVkjk djus ls leFkZ cuus ds fy;s fdlh O;fDr dks mlds le{k mifLFkfr vko;d gS rks og ,slk O;fDr esa izfroknh i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ;g Hkh lqLFkkfir gS fd U;k;ky; esa fufgr ;g kfDr oSdfYid gS ijUrq U;k;ky; dk ;g foosd U;kf;d foosd gksuk pkfg;s vkSj ;fn U;k;ky; ds ekeyksa esa rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lafgrk ds vkMZj 1 :y 10 ds v/khu fdlh i{kdkj dks la;ksftr djus vFkok la;ksftr djus ls bUdkj djus esa U;k;ksfpr foosd dk iz;ksx fd;k gS rks ;g U;k;ky; fuxjkuh dh lquokbZ djrs le; ,sls U;k;ksfpr foosd esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxkA ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1983 ,l-lh- ist 355 Hkxoku Lo:i cuke~ ewypan ds izdj.k esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds nks U;k;k/khkkssa us lgefr izdV dh gS fd izfdz;k fof/k U;k;ky; dh vfHko`f) ds fy;s vkSj fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks vfHkys[k ij ykus esa gqbZ nsjh dks ekeyss dh foks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dj nsuk pkfg,A U;k;k/khkksa esa ls ,d ,slh =qfV dks /;ku esa u ykus ds i{k esa Fkk ijUrq nwljs U;k;k/khk us ;g cryk;k fd fofgr izfdz;k dh ikyuk djrs gq, gh U;k; dh kh?kz izkfIr gks ldrh gSA vU;Fkk i{kdkjksa dh vla;kstu ds dkj.k U;k;ky; dks fdlh okn dks [kkfjt ugha djuk pkfg, oju~ vkMZj 1 :y 10¼2½] vkMZj 6 :y 17 ds rgr iznRr kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg, rFkk 1976 esa /kkjk 99 rFkk vknsk 1 fu;e 9 esa tksM+s x;s ijUrqd ls bl kfDr esa deh ugha gksrhA 11- ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1958 ,l-lh- ist 886 ^^jft;k csxe cuke lkgsctknh vuoj csxe o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Addition of parties — Consideration for— it, is not a question of jurisdiction but one of discretion which has to be exercised judicially. (1) That the question of addition of parties u/R. 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the Court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Sec. 115 of the Code; (2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the litigation; (3). Where the subject-matter of a litigation, is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the Court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy; (4) The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sees. 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act; (5) In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the Court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the Court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission; (6) The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and in view of that considerations to come, and in view of that consideration, the rule of present interest, as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force; and (7) The rule laid down in Sec. 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of resjudicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1964 ,l-lh- ist 1746 ^^ Hochtief Gammon vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and others** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Addition of parties — Powers of statutory Tribunal — Tribunal though vested with the several powers of Civil Court, the power to add a party not expressly vested in it —- Such power to add parties cannot be exercised impliedly by Tribunal as incidental to its powers to summons and adjudication— Though in exercise of its powers to summon to third parties, it may summon them and any decision thereafter may be binding on such person as well. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1996 ,l-lh- ist 1513 ^^Jherh vEcs nsoh cuke fcgkj ljdkj o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1 Rule 10 — Application of — Proceedings under special statute — Provision inconsistent with the scheme of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Impleadment of co-owner not permissible. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1997 ,l-lh- ist 257 ^^vuks[ksyky cuke~ jk/kkeksgu caly o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — considerations for — Third party seeking impleadment not a necdessary party — Impleadment opposed by plaintiff whch was likely to result in de novo trial — Impleadment should be disallowed. The court should have been very circumspect in dealing with the application of a third party seeking leave to become party in the suit, when the plaintiff, who is the dominus litis of the suit, is opposed to it. If the consequence of such addition would involve a de novo trial, the court should normally have disallowed the application. Order 1, Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — disposed off suit — Permissibility — Suit stood disposed of during pendency of revision against the order declining impleadment to third party — Impleadment could not be permitted — Revision should only have been dismissed as infructuous. 12- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1969 ,l-lh- ist 69 ^^jkeizlkn nxnwjke cuke fot;dqekj eksrhyky ghjk[kkuokyk o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule; 10 — Impleadment of parties — Effect on limitation — Suit became barred against the persons impleaded — Addition of parties is not permissible. 12- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1969 ,l-lh- ist 69 ^^jkeizlkn nxnwjke cuke fot;dqekj eksrhyky ghjk[kkuokyk o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule; 10 — Impleadment of parties — Effect on limitation — Suit became barred against the persons impleaded — Addition of parties is not permissible. Sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 10 permits the addition of both plaintiffs and defendants in certain circumstances. The order however was not sought to be justified under that provision an there was good- reason for it. It was concealed, and in my Opinion rightly, that in view of Sec. 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit as regards the parties added under this sub-rule had to be deemed to have been instituted when they were added. It is not in dispute that a suit filed on the date when the three sisters were added, to enforce the mortgage would have been barred. Therefore, it would have been futile to add any of the parties under this sub-rule. In view of the bar of limitation, such addition would not have resulted in any decree being passed and, therefore, the addition should not have been ordered. I am, however, not to be understood as holding that apart from the difficulty created by Sec. 22 the order could have been property passed under the sub-rule. I have the gravest doubts of it could. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1983 ,l-lh- ist 271 ^^eaqkhjke cuke~ ujlhjke o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Impleadment of party — Necessary party — Omission to implead a party due to bona fide mistake — Delay in seeking amendment is of no consequence — Impleadment necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate all the question involved in the suit — The suit shall be deemed to have been filed from the date of original plaint under Law of Limitation — Impleadment allowed. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1995 ,llh ist 1653 ^^fo|korh cuke~ eueksgu o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Impleadment — Necessity of — Legal representative assertingan independent right, title or interest or to resist the claim made by the plaintiff in personal capacity — Impleadment in individual capacity is necessary. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1995 ,llh ist 1653 ^^fo|korh cuke~ eueksgu o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Impleadment — Necessity of — Legal representative assertingan independent right, title or interest or to resist the claim made by the plaintiff in personal capacity — Impleadment in individual capacity is necessary. ekuuh; loksZP; U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1967 ,l-lh- ist 1390 ^^ex: egkrks o vU; cuke Bkdqj rjdukFkth rkdsZojukFk o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necessary parties — Lessee of mortgager ~ Lessee introduced in the ordinary course of management is though not binding on mortgagee but acquire an interest in the equity of redemption — Such lessee must be joined as party to the suit. A lease granted by the mortgager, out of the ordinary course of management, though not binding on the mortgagee, is binding as between the mortgagor and the lessee. Such a lessee acquires an interest in the right of redemption and is entitled to redeem. If such a lease is created before the institution, of a suit relating to the mortgage, the lessee must be joined as a party to the suit under Order 34, Rule 1 C.P.C., otherwise he will not be bound by the decree passed in the suit and will continue to retain his right of redemption. But in view of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, if the mortgagor grants such a lease during the pendency of a suit for sale by the mortgagee, the lessee is bound by the result of the litigation; If the property is sold in execution of the decree passed in the suit, the lessee cannot resist a claim for possession by the auction-purchaser. The lessee could apply for being joined as a party to the suit and ask for an opportunity to redeem the property. But if he allows the property to be sold in execution of the decree, he loses his right of redemption. 13- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1964 ,l-lh- ist 1889 ^^:ipUn xqIrk cuke~ j?kqcakh ¼izk-½ fy- o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necessary parties — Sub-lessee — Suit against lessee for possession of land on the basis of the valid notice to quit — Sub-lessee is not a necessary party. 13- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1964 ,l-lh- ist 1889 ^^:ipUn xqIrk cuke~ j?kqcakh ¼izk-½ fy- o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necessary parties — Sub-lessee — Suit against lessee for possession of land on the basis of the valid notice to quit — Sub-lessee is not a necessary party. The law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lease; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1997 ,l-lh- ist 64 ^^eSllZ vyhth eksuksth ,.M dEiuh cuke~ ykyth ekoth o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necessary party — Meaning of — It is the party without whose presence no effective and complete adjudication of the dispute could be made and no relief granted. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1969 ,l-lh- ist 316 ^^j?kqizlkn xqIrk cuke Jh d`".kk iksn~nkj** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necessary party — Prejudice by non-impleadment — Consideration of— Benamidar impleaded as party — Benamidar protecting the interest of the real owner by admitting to be Benamidar — On death of Benamidar his legal heirs also accepted the title of real owner — Application by real owner to be impleaded as party — Non-joinder of real owner caused no prejudice to him — Application for impleadment rightly rejected by the Court — The real owner is bound by the decree. In any litigation with a third party, the benamidar can sufficiently represent the real owner. In any litigation with a third party, the benamidar can sufficiently represent the real owner. The decision in any proceeding brought by or against the benamidar will bind the real owner though he is not joined as a party unless it is shown that the benamidar could not or did not in fact represent the interest of the real owner in that proceeding. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1961 ,l-lh- ist 643 ^^vkj- jkekewfrZ v¸;j cuke~ jktk oh- jktsojk jko** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Necesary party — Suit for specific performance — Purchaser under notice of prior agreement of sale — The party to prior agreement is a necessary party in the suit. 14- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1961 ,l-lh- ist 1277 ^^nsohnkl o vU; cuke~ Jh pSyIik o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Non-joinder of parties — Suit by Manager of joint family — Objections about non-impleadment — The adult co-sharers of the family, not raised earlier, stand waived by the parties — Limitation Act, 1908 — Sec. 22 — Application of— Scope of. Failure to join a person who is a proper but not a necessary party does no affect the maintainability of the suit nor doers affect the maintainability of the suit nor does it invite the application of Sec.22 of the Indian Limitation Act. The rule that a person who ought to have been joined as a plaintiff to the suit and is not made a party will entail dismissal of the suit, if the suit as regards him by barred by limitation when he is joined, has no application to non-joinder of proper parties. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1995 ,l-lh- ist 1004 ^^eSllZ uhosyh fyXukbZV dkiksZjsku fy- cuke~ Lisky rglhynkj ¼yS.M ,Dohthku½ uhosyh o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Property party — Beneficiary of acquisition — Impleadment as party — Participation in proceedings for determination of compensation — The beneficiary has limited right of adducing evidence for the purpose of determining compensation but it no right to seek reference — Though beneficiary for whose benefit land is acquired, as an interest person and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party but he has a right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1997 ,l-lh- ist 64 ^^eSllZ vyhth eksuksth ,.M dEiuh cuke~ ykyth ekoyh o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10 — Proper party — Where the presence of a party is necessaryfor complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no reliefs is sought, it is a proper party. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 2000 ,l-lh- ist 3587 ^^fot;dqekj iVuk;d cuke~ clardqekj iVuk;d o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 10— Transposition of parties — Suit for partition — Munsif Court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suit — Plaintiff instead of praying for return of plaint for presentation to proper Court sought transposition of certain plaintiffs as defendants — Considering fact that suit was pending and if transposition is allowed the suit would again fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsiffs Court — To avoid zig-zag procedure, Supreme Court allowed to transpose original plaintiffs 2 to 5 as Defendants 4 to 7 exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to amend plaint. 15- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1965 ,l-lh- ist 271 ^^Kanakarathanammal vs. Loganatha Mudaliar and others** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rules 9 and 10 — Non-joinder of necessary parties — Effect of — Suit seeking succession — Failure to implead other legal heirs — The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of impleadment of necessary parties. That, in fact, is the conclusion which the trial Court had reached and yet no action was taken by the appellant to bring the necessary parties on the record. It is true that under Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of the parties, but there can be no doubt that if the parties who are not joined are not only proper but also necessary parties to it, the infirmity in the suit in bound to be fatal. Even in such cases, the Court can under Order 1, Rule 10, sub-rule 2 direct the necessary parties to be joined, but all this can and should be done at the stage of trial and that too without prejudice to-the said parties plea of limitation. Even in such cases, the Court can under Order 1, Rule 10, sub-rule 2 direct the necessary parties to be joined, but all this can and should be done at the stage of trial and that too without prejudice to-the said parties plea of limitation. Once it is held that the appellants two brothers are co-heirs with her in respect of the properties left intestate by their mother, the present suit filed by the appellant partakes of the character of a suit for partition and in such a suit clearly the appellant alone would not be entitled to claim any relief against the respondents. The estate can be represented only when all the three heirs are before the Court. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1979 ,l-lh- ist 1682 ^^Profulla chorone Requitte and others vs. Satya Charan Requittee** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 9 — Necessary parties — Trust property — Suit by trustees seeking possession of a part of property in the possession of shebait — Suijt without impleading all the shebaits, is liable for dismissal on account of non joinder. Shebaitship of the family deity remained solely with the descendants of the founder; and the defendant-respondent who is admittedly a grandson of the founder, had been regarded as one of the Shebaits, and as such, entitled to reside in the disputed rooms, All the shebaits were therefore, necessary parties; but all of them have not been impleaded. The trustees by themselves have no right to maintain the suit in respect of the debutter property, the legal title to which vests in the idol, and not in the trustees. The right to sue on be half of the deity vests in the Shebaits. All the Shebaits of the deity not having been made parties, the suit was not property constituted, and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1993 ,l-lh- ist 1587 ^^y{ehkadj gjhkadj HkV~~V cuke k;jke oLr ¼e`rd tfj;s okfjlku½** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 9 — Non-joinder of necessary parties — suit for recovery of possession on the basis of ownership — Vague plea of non-joinder of co-owner in the suit — Dismissal of suit for non-joinder not called for. There is no clear averment as to who are the co-owners and what exactly is the nature of right claimed by them. There is no clear averment as to who are the co-owners and what exactly is the nature of right claimed by them. A vague statement of this character, in our considered opinion, could hardly be sufficient to non-suit the appellant on the ground of non-joinder of parties. We are unable to comprehend as to how the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the executants of the sale deed dated 12.2.1968 could not pass a full title when itself points out that the shares of the other co-owners were not known. Therefore, the Courts should have insisted on some material on record as to the existence of other co-owners and their rights pertaining to suit properties. In juxtaposition to revenue record, there must be some worthwhile evidence for the Court to conclude that there are other co-owners. Genealogical tree filed along with the written statement cannot point to the existence of co-owners without specific evidence in this regard. 16- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1979 ,l-lh- ist 1682 ^^Profulla chorone Requitte and others vs. Satya Charan Requittee** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Order 1, Rule 9 — Necessary parties — Trust property — Suit by trustees seeking possession of a part of property in the possession of shebait — Suit without impleading all the shebaits, is liable for dismissal on account of non joinder. Shebaitship of the family deity remained solely with the descendants of the founder, and the defendant-respondent who is admittedly a grandson of the founder, had been regarded as one of the Shebaits, and as such, entitled to reside in the disputed rooms. All the Shebaits were therefore, necessary parties; but all of them have not been impleaded. The trustees by themselves have no right to maintain the suit in respect of the debutter property, the legal title to which vests in the idol, and not in the Trustees. The right to sue on behalf of the deity vests in the Shebaits. All the Shebaits of the deity not having been made parties, the suit was not properly constituted, and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The right to sue on behalf of the deity vests in the Shebaits. All the Shebaits of the deity not having been made parties, the suit was not properly constituted, and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 17- 1998¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 61 ^^y{ehukjk;.k cuke iwuepUn o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O. 1 R. 9 & Sec. 96 — Non-joinder of necessary party — Plaintiff was only exclusive owner of the property & claimed the right of pre-emption — All brothers not impleaded as party — Objection raised in respect of maintainability of suit — Trial Court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff — No partition deed filed — Mere oral statement not sufficient to prove exclusive ownership — Held, Plaintiff failed to prove the legal partition & suit is not maintainable in absence of the necessary parties. 2000¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ 335 ^^kkafrnkl cuke~ ?kklhyky o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1, R.10 — After filing of the suit it was known that the property has been sold — Plaintiff desired to implead the subsequent purchaser — Held, it is to be allowed. 1995¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 302 ^^ftrsUnzukFk feJk o vU; cuke~ eSllZ tl izksiVhZt izk- fy-** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1, r.10 — Application for impleading party — Party virtually on behalf of applicant also u/O. 41 R.4 — Applicant has prima facie interest, title & is a co-sharer in suit property — Held Applicant has legitimate right to be impleaded as appellant in this appeal. 1999¼2½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 829 ^^Jherh :de.kh cuke~ uxj fuxe tks/kiqj o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 —O. 1 R. 10 — Impleading parties in an injunction case — The Municipality was to demolish the newly constructed steps for these shortened the width of the road — The neighbours were affected and were impleaded — This is the discretion of the trial Court and it cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction — Supreme Court ruling followed. 1995¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 57 ^^lqjsUnzdqekj cuke~ jkT; ljdkj o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O. 1, R. 10 — Necessary party — Application for — Application rejected by Magistrate — Petitioner transferred from Municipal Council, Udaipur — One Basanti Lal taken over charge in place of petitioner — Transfer matter — Held, Mr. Basanti Lal is a necessary party in the suit and he had to be impleaded a party to it. 2002¼2½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 703 ^^ek.kdyky cuke~ xaxkjke o vU;** izdj.k es fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1 R.10 — Scope of — Petitioner challenging order of Court below by which applicant was impleaded as party u/O. 1 R. 10 — Applicant stated that disputed land is Government land and is the land of way and he will be adversely affected by decision of suit filed by plaintiff — Held, Trial Court rightly impleaded applicant as party u/O. 1 R. 10. 1997¼2½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 755 ^^kkafryky cuke~ y{ehukjk;.k o vU;** izdj.k eas fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1 R.10 & Sec. 115 — Addition of necessary party — Plaintiff executed agreement to sell in favour of R.K. & the defendant handed over the possession to R.K. as per direction of the plaintiff — Suit for eviction filed after execution of the sale agreement — R.K. also filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement party & the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error. 1995¼2½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 520 ^^yknwflag cuke~ jktLo e.My jktLFkku o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Necessary party to the suit — Impleadment thereof — Exercise of the powers — Held, The Court can exercise the powers suo motu also to adjudicate the question completely. 1995¼2½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 520 ^^yknwflag cuke~ jktLo e.My jktLFkku o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS% Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Necessary party to the suit — Impleadment thereof — Exercise of the powers — Held, The Court can exercise the powers suo motu also to adjudicate the question completely. 18- fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ,oa mijksDr vafdr uthjksa ds ifjizs{; esa geus izLrqr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa fopkj fd;k gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 ls 5 ds ifr@firk HkS: }kjk dk jgu fnukad 2-3-1994 dks djus ds rF; vk, gSa vkSj mDr jgu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks vf/kdkj izkIr gksaxs vFkok ugha ;g okn ds fu.kZ; ij fuHkZj djrk gS ysfdu blh fookfnr Hkwfe ds okn esa izkFkhZ ds fgrksa ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; gksxk vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa og bl okn esa ,d vko;d i{kdkj gS D;ksafd okn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ls izkFkhZ ds vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksrs gSA blds vykok Hkh bl Hkwfe ckcr~ HkS: }kjk izLrqr iwoZ ds okn la- 103@2000 esa orZeku izkFkhZ dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k FkkA blfy;s mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZ ds i{kdkj cuus ds izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus esa dkuwuh Hkwy dh gSA 19- mijksDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i ;g fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA mi [k.M vf/kdkjh e.My ftyk HkhyokM+k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 5-12-2002 fujLr fd;k tkdj orZeku izkFkhZ dks okn esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkrk gS rFkk ijh{k.k U;k;ky; dks funsZk fn;s tkrs gS fd os okn esa izkFkhZ dks i{kdkj ekurs gq, vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djsaA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky esa lquk;k x;kA