iqjksfgr] lnL;-&mijksDr lHkh ikap fuxjkfu;ka jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e*½ dh /kkjk 230 ds varxZr lgk;d dysDVj fdkux<okl ds vyx vyx vknsk fnukad 3-4-02 ds fo:0 izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk mUgksaus lhihlh ds vknsk 1 fu;e 10 ds izkFkZuk i= la[;k 19@02] 20@02] 21@02] 22@02] 23@02 dk fuLrkj.k fd;k gSa lHkh izdj.kksa esa izkFkhZ Qdhjk gh gS rFkk izdj.kksa ds fooknfcUnq ,dleku gksus ls nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds vfHkHkk"kdx.k us lHkh izdj.kksa dh ,dlkFk lquokbZ djus dk fuosnu fd;k] ftls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj lHkh izdj.kksa dh lquokbZ ,dlkfk dh xbZ vkSj budk fuLrkj.k bl ,d gh fu.kZ; ls fd;k tk jgk gSA fu.kZ; dh ,d ,d izfrfyfi izR;sd fuxjkuh dh i=koyh esa layXu dh tkosA 2- izdj.kksa ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd izkFkhZ Qdhjk us ,d okn ^vf/kfu;e* dh /kkjk 88] 89] 188 ds varxZr mi ftyk/khk fdkux<okl ds le{k vkjkth eqruktk [kljk ua-315 jdck 2 ch?kk] [kljk ua-49 jdck 2 ch?kk 5 fcLok] [kljk ua-81 jdck 10 fcLok] [kljk ua-87 jdck 8 ch?kk 8 fcLok] [kljk ua-105 jdck 1 ch?kk 6 fcLok] [kljk ua-121 jdck 4 fcLok] [kljk ua-145 jdck 1 ch?kk 17 fcLok] [kljk ua-234 jdck 2 ch?kk 5 fcLok dqy fdrk 8 dqy jdck 10 ch?kk 15 fcLok okds ekStk iwanjdk rglhy fdkux<okl ftyk vyoj ds ckcr jkT; ljdkj ds fo:) izLrqr fd;kA bl okn esa orZeku vizkFkhZ ua-1 us lhihlh ds vknsk1 fu;e 10 dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj okn esa mUgsa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ftudk tokc izkFkhZ@oknh Qdhjk }kjk fn;k x;ka fopkj.k U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl lqudj orZeku vizkFkhZx.k ds mDr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks vius vyx vyx vknsk fnukad 3-4-02 }kjk Lohdkj fd;k] ftuds fo:) ;g lHkh fuxjkfu;ka izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 3- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk rdZ gS fd fdlh okn esa fdls i{kdkj cuk;k tkos] ;g oknh dk vf/kdkj gS vkSj mldh ethZ ds fo:) fdlh vU; O;fDr dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrkA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkhZ ds fdlh gyQukesa dks izLrqr dj dCtk vizkFkhZx.k dks fn;k tkuk dgdj i{kdkj cuus dk izkFkZuk i= fn;kA mDr gyQukek QthZ gS rfkk bl izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ us rks fgrc) i{kdkj gS rFkk mudh vuqifLFkfr esa okn dk fu.kZ; ugha gks ldrk blfy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i{kdkj cukus esa =qfV dh gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) ;fn vizkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ vuqrks"k iznku djukgS rks os vyx ls nkok izLrqr dj ldrs gSa bl okn esa mUgsa drbZ i{kdkj ugha cuk;k tkuk pkfg;s FkkA 4- vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk rdZ gS fd fookfnu Hksfe esa vyx vyx jdcksa dks vizkFkhZx.k us [kjhnk gS vkSj mudk vius vius [kjhnkqnk fgLls ij dCtk gSA izkFkhZ dk Hkwfe ij dksbZ dCtk ugha gS blfy, vizkFkhZx.k us fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 8-9-89 dks kiFk i= tks izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa rgjhj ,oa rdehy fd;k vkSj tks dk;Zikyd n.Muk;d fdkux<okl esa rLnhdkqnk gS] izLrqr fd;k ftlesa izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl vkjkth ij izkFkhZ dk dCtk ugha gS vkSj dCtk vizkFkhZx.k dk gSa bl izdkj Lo;a izkFkhZ us Hkwfe ij vizkFkhZx.k dk dCtk ekuk gSA blh vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa fgr ekurs gq, muds vkWMzj 1 :y 10 lhihlh ds izkFkZuk i=ksa dks Lohdkj djus esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; us dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSA 5- geus nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqusaA mu ij euu fd;k rFkk miyC/k i=kofy;ksa dk xgurk ls voyksdu fd;kA 6- lh-ih-lh- ds vknsk 1 fu;e 10 ds varxZr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vko;d i{kdku cuk;k tk ldrk gs ;fn og fookn dh fo"k; oLrq esa dkuwuh fgr j[krk gksa bl vkk; dk fl)kUr ,vkbZvkj 1968 enzkl ist&142 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA 7- orZeku izdj.kksa esa vizkFkhZ dk ;fn fgr yfEcr okn fufgr gS] rks mls i{kdkj cuk;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn vizkFkhZx.k dk dksbZ fgr ugha gS rks mUgsa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dh vko;drk ugha jgrhA fdlh Hkh okn esa ;fn dksbZ O;fDr viuk fgr lkfcr Hkh dj ns rks fopkj.k U;k;ky; okn dh LVst dks /;ku esa j[kdj ftl O;fDr dk fgr oknxzLr Hkwfe esa fufgr gks mls i{kdkj ugha cukdj vyx ls okn izLrqr djus dk funsZk Hkh ns ldrk gsa tSls fdlh okn esa ;fn vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij rufd;kr dk;e dh tkdj lk{; iw.kz gks pqdh gks vkSj izdj.k lquokbZ dh LVst ij gks rks ,sls fgrc) O;fDr dks tks ckn ds fu.kZ; esa vko;d i{kdkj dh rkjhQ esa ugha vkrk gks mls vyx ls okn izLrqr dj vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh fgnk;r ds lkFk mls i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk vknsk ns ldrk gS ysfdu ;fn okn izkjafHkd LVst ij gks rks fgrc) O;fDr dks vko;d :i ls mlh okn esa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk fl)kUr gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g fookfnr ugha gSA okn vkjfEHkd LVst ij gh gSA 8- izLrqr izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk lhihlh ds vkWMZj 1 :y 10 ds izkFkZuk i= esa tks rF; vafdr fd;s gS mlesa izkFkhz ds }kjk kiFk i= izLrqr dj mls vizkFkhZx.k ds fookfnr Hkwfe o dCts dh LohdkjksfDr ds rF;ksa dks vafdr djrs gq, fookfnr Hkwfe esa vius vkidks fgrc) i{kdkj crk;k gSA 9- fof/k dk ;g loZekU; fl)kUr gS fd oknh dh bZPNk 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 gs ,slh fLFkfr esa ml O;fDr dks i{kdkj cukuk vko;d gS ftlsl fd "Multiplicity of Proceedings" iSnk u gksA fdlh Hkh fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds [kjhnnkj ds laca/k esa ,vkbZvkj 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 10- vknsk 1 fu;e 10 lhihlh ds izko/kku U;k;ky; dks O;kid kfDr;kWa iznku djrs gS ftlesa oknh ds uke dks lgh djuk] i{kdkjksa ds uke dkVuk ;k tksM+uk rFkk izfroknh ds tksM+us ij okn i= esa lakks/ku dh dk;Zokgh djuh gS tks ,d egRoiw.kZ micU/k gS tks O;ogkfjd n`f"V ls cgqr mi;ksxh izko/kku gSA i{kdkjksa dks tksM+us ds fy;s nks krksZ dk gksuk vko;d gS%& ¼1½ tc fdlh O;fDr dk uke oknh ;k izfroknh ds :i esa la;kftr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s ;k 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 11- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us jft;k csxe cuke vuoj csxe ¼,vkbZvkj 1958 ,llh 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 izfØ;k lafgrk ds vknsk 1 ds fu;e 10 ds v/khu i{kdkjksa dks tksM+us dk izu lk/kkj.kr;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 ea j[kdj iz;ksx esa ysuk gksxk] ijUrq dqN ekeyksa esa U;k;ky; dh vUrfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ds izfrdwy vUrj crkrs gq, fookn 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 lEifRr laca/kh okn esa fdlh O;fDr dks ,d i{kdkj esa :i esa la;kftr ¼tksM+us½ djus ds fy;s ml O;fDr dk lafookn ds fo"k; esa lh/kh fgr gksuk pkfg;s] 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/ksfgr ds fu;e dks mfpr ekeyksa esa fkfFky fd;k tkldrk 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;s vf/kd vPNh fLFkfr esa gksxkA** bl /kkjk 10¼2½ esa ^^okn ds vUrZofyr lHkh izuksa** dh kCnkoyh dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSa ftldk vFkZ gS ^^lafookn ds i{kdkjksa ds chp ds izuksa vFkkZr~ & tgka ,d vksj ls Fkkfir fd;s vf/kdkj vkSj ekaxs x;s vuqrks"k rFkk nwljh vkSj mudks vLohdkj djus ;k jksdus 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 dks okn dk Lokeh ¼Dominus litus½ ekuk x;k 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 izfØ;k U;k; dh lsfodk gS u fd Lokfeuh vkSj izfØ;kRed vfu;ferrk dk 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 12- ;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 dh mlds le{k mifLFkfr vko;d gS rks og ,slk O;fDr okn esa izfroknh i{kdkj ds :i ls la;kftr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA ;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 vkWMZj 1 :y 10 ds v/khu fdlh i{kdkj dks la;kftr 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;sfpr foosd esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxkA ,vkbZvkj 1983 ,llh ist&355 Hkxoku Lo:i cuke ewypan ds izdj.k esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds nks U;k;k/khksa us lgefr izdV dh gS fd izfØ;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 ekeys dh foks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dj nsuk pkfg;sA 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 izfØ;k dh ikyuk djrs gq, gh U;k; dh kh?kz izkfIr gks ldrh gSA vU;Fkk i{kdkjksa ds vla;kstu ds dkj.k U;k;ky; dks fdlh okn dks [kkfjt ugha djuk pkfg;s oju~ vkWMzj 1 :y 10¼2½] vkWMZj 6 :y 17 ds rgr iznRr kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg;s rFkk 1976 esa /kkjk 99 rFkk vknsk 1 fu;e 9 esa tksM+s x;s ijUrqd ls bl kfDr esa deh ugha gksrhA 13- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1958 ,llh 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 under Rule 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 section 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 sections 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 Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. 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 ,vkbZvkj 1964 ,llh ist 1746 "Hochtief Gammon vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa & 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 ,vkbZvkj 1996 ,llh 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—Impleadmentof co-owner not permissible. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1997 ,llh 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 necessary party—Impleadment opposed by plaintiff which 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. 14- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1969 ,llh 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 impleadment—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. 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 and there was good reason for it—It was conceded.-and in my opinion rightly.-that in view of Section 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 Section 22 the order could have been properly passed under the sub-rule. I have the gravest doubts if it could. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1983 ,llh ist 271 ^^eqakhjke cuke ujlhjke o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& Order 1, Rule 10—Impleadment of 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.—Munshi Ram vs. Narsi Ram and another. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 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 asserting an 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 ,vkbZvkj 1967 ,llh ist 1390 ^^eax: 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 mortgagor, 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 CPC, 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 Section 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 inexecution of the decree, he loses his right of redemption. 15- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1964 ,llh ist 1889 ^^:ipan xqIrk cuke j?kqoakh 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 he 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-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allow this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allow this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1997 ,llh 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 ,vkbZvkj 1969 ,llh ist 316 ^^j?kqizlkn xqIrk cuke Jh —".kk iksíkj** 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. 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 ,vkbZvkj 1973 ,llh ist 643 ^^vkj-jkekewfrZ v;~;j cuke jktk oh- jktsojk jko** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& Order 1, Rule 10—Necessary 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. 16- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1961 ,llh 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—Section 22—Application of—Scope of. Failure to join a person who is a proper but not a necessary party does not affect the maintainability of the suit nor does affect the maintainability of the suit nor does it invite the application of Section 22 of the Indian Limitation Act. Failure to join a person who is a proper but not a necessary party does not affect the maintainability of the suit nor does affect the maintainability of the suit nor does it invite the application of Section 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 be barred by limitation when he is joined, has no application to non-joinder of proper parties. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1995 ,llh ist 1004 ^^eSllZ uhosyh fyXukbZV dkWiksZku fy- cuke Lisky rglhynkj ¼yS.M ,Dohthku½ uhosyh o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& Order 1, Rule 10—Proper 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 ,vkbZvkj 1997 ,llh 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 necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, it is a proper party. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 2000 ,llh ist 3587 ^^fot;dqekj iVuk;d cuke calrdqekj 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 transportation 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. 17- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1965 ,llh ist 271 ^^Kanakarathanammal vs. Loganatha Mudaliar and others** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& Order 1, Rule 9 & 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 for 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 for 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. 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 ,vkbZvkj 1979 ,llh 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. 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 nor 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. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1993 ,llh ist 1587 ^^y{ehkadj gjhkadj Hkê cuke ;kjke 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. 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. 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. 18- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,vkbZvkj 1979 ,llh ist 1682 ^^ Profulla Chorone Requitte and others vs. Satya Charan Requittee** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& Order 1, Rule 9—Necessary party—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. 19- 1998¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 61 ^^y{ehukjk;.k cuke iwuepan o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh 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 ist 335 ^^kkafrnkl cuke ?khlkyky 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. 2000¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼jkt-½ ist 335 ^^kkafrnkl cuke ?khlkyky 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 ^^ftrsanzukFkfeJk o vU; cuke eSllZ tl izkiVhZt izk-fy-** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—Application for impleading party—Appeal virtually on behalf of applicant also u/O.4 41 R. 4—Applicant has prima facie interest, title and 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 gS %& CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—Impleading parties 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 ^^lqjsanzdqekj cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU;** izdj.k esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh 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 esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh 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 esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh 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—Plausibility of the claim of R.K. Held, R.K. is a necessary party and 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 gS %& CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—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. 20- 1994 vkjvkjMh ist 435 ^^eq- dkarknsoh cuke vkse izdkk o vU;** izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS %& (A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—It is true that normally no party should be added against the wishes of the plaintiff who is the domini litis This rule is, however, not an absolute bar—A party can be added if the court is satisfied that its presence will help the court to decide the matter in controversy effectively and completely —In a suit u/s.53 of the Raj. Tenancy Act for division of holding a person claiming to be a legatee of the deceased land holder is a proper and necessary party and no effective decree can be passed in his absence. 1995 vkjvkjMh ist 153 ^^clardqekj oxSjk cuke uxj ifj"kn mn;iqj oxSjk** izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS%& Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—It is true that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and he cannot be compelled to litigate against a person from whom he seeks no relief but the court has the power to join any person either as a plaintiff or as a defendant to ensure complete and final disposal of the suit—In a suit under Section 188 of the Raj. Tenancy Act. Tenancy Act. in which the plaintiff sought to restrain the Municipal Board from selling or otherwise alienating the impugned land the person whose case for allotment of the land was pending before the Board was held to be a proper party and acceptance of his application for impleadment was held proper. REVISION REJECTED with costs. 1995 vkjvkjMh ist 281 ^^eq- ljnkj tgka cuke vCnqy dknj [kka oxSjk** izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS%& Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—Under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party order for implication of any person as a party—It is entirely at the discretion of the Court—No error of jurisdiction in the order. REVISION DISMISSED. 1995 vkjvkjMh ist 541 ^^Mksjhyky oxSjk cuke eq- jkenqykjh oxSjk** izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS%& Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—Raj. Land Records Rulexs, 1957, Rule 131(2)—Person claiming right on the basis of Will is a necessary party with natural successors in appeal against mutation—Summary enquiry must be made in matters of succession and if right is claimed on the basis of will by any party legality of will should be ascertained—Non-impleading as a party to non-petitioner No.2, claiming on the basis of will, will create multiplicity of litigation. REVISION REJECTED. 1995 vkjvkjMh ist 545 ^^vtqZuflag cuke jktLFkku ljdkj oxSjk** izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us fuEu O;oLFkk nh gS%& Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. 1 R. 10—Court can implead any person as a party to arrive at the fair conclusion—Non-applicant No.2 was impleaded as a party in proceedings u/s.91, L.R. Act initiated against the applicant on the report of the Patwari—No material irregularity has been committed by the Tehsildar in impleading him as a party—Section 84-A of the L.R. Act specifically bars revision againt such orders. REVISION DISMISSED. REVISION DISMISSED. 21- mijksDr fof/kd izko/kkuksa ,oa uthjksa rFkk lh-ih-lh ds i{kdkj cuk;s ds lacaf/kr izko/kkuksa dks orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa voyksdu djrs gq, mu ij fopkj fd;k x;kA izLrqr izdj.k esa orZeku izkFkhZ }kjk dsoy ljdkj dks i{kdkj cukdj ^vf/kfu;e* dh /kkjk 88] 89] 188 dk okn izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa orZeku vizkFkhZ uacj 1 }kjk i{kdkj cuus dk izkFkZuk i= bl vk/kkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd orZeku Hkwfe dh [kjhn orZeku vizkFkhZ uacj 2 }kjk oknh ls dh xbZA [kjhn ds bl dFku ds leZFku esa vizkFkhZ uacj 1 }kjk oknh dk Lo;a dk kiFk i= tks rLnhdkqnk gS] isk fd;k ftlesa oknh }kjk Hkwfe dk dCtk vizkFkhZx.k dks laHkyk fn;s tkus dh LohdkjksfDr gSA fookfnr Hkwfe dh bl dFkr [kjhn vFkok [kjhnus ds ckcr~ bdjkjukesa ls mriUu gksus okys vf/kdkjksa dk fu.kZ; u rks lhihlh ds vknsk 1 fu;e 10 ds izkFkzuk i= dks fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs le; fopkj.k U;k;ky; dj ldrk gS vkSj u gh bl U;k;ky; dks bl fuxjkuh ds fuLrkfjr djrs le; djuk gS] mu vf/kdkjksa dk fu.kZ; rks okn esa vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij dk;e rudh;kr~ ij izkIr lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA tgka rd fookfnr Hkwfe ds orZeku vizkFkhZx.k ds fgrksa dk izu gS] ds laca/k esa bl okn ds fu.kZ; ij vlj t:j iM+sxk vkSj bl okn esa vizkFkhZ ds fgrc) gksus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vc izu ;g gS fd D;k izR;sd fgrc) O;fDr dks okn esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko;d gS\ gekjh jk; esa ;g izu izr;sd izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa okn dh LVst ij fuHkZj djrk gS D;ksafd ;fn okn fu.kZ; ds vafre pj.k esa gS vkSj fgrc) i{kdkj okn ds fuLrkj.k ds fy;s vko;d ¼Necessary & Proper½ i{kdkj ugha gS rks ml fgrc) O;fDr dks vyx ls okn nk;j dj vius vf/kdkjksa dk fuLrkj.k djkus ds funsZk ds lkFk mls i{kdkj cuk;s tkus ls badkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ysfdu ;fn okn vkjfEHkd LVst ij gh gks rks fgrc) O;fDr dks i{kdkj ugha cukdj mls vyx ls okn izLrqr djus dk funsZk drbZ ^^Travisity of Justice** gksxk vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa mldks okn esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk pkfg;sA izLrqr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa okn dh vkjfEHkd LVst dks ns[krs gq, gekjs fopkj ls okn esa ;fn vizkFkhZx.k dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkrk gS rks blls oknh **Multiciplity of Suit** ls cpk tk ldrk gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds vuq:i gh orZeku vizkFkhZx.k dks i{kdkj cuus dk tks vknsk fn;k gS og drbZ {ks=kf/kdkjfoghu vFkok voS/kkfud vknsk ugha dgk tk ldrkA 22- mijksDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i ls ikapksa fuxjkfu;ka [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; & lgk;d dyDVj fdkux<+okl dk vknsk fnukad 3-4-02 ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gSA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA