Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1270 (JHR)

Nesar Ahmad @ Nesar v. Anil Kumar

2022-11-01

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2022
ORDER : 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by Civil Judge Sr. Division XI, Ranchi whereby the petition filed by them under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. in O.S. No.184 of 2006, has been rejected. 2. The petitioners field the petition dated 24.05.2022 for being impleaded which has been rejected by the learned Court below for the reason that they were not necessary party in the suit and impleading the petitioner at that stage would result in de novo trial and delay in the disposal of the suit. 3. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that they are in possession of the suit property and they are heirs and descendants of the recorded tenants. It is contended that the suit land was recorded in the name of Mir Sakir Ali father of the petitioner and they were in possession and holding receipt of Ranchi Municipal Corporation was issued in their favour. In support of the contention, Khatian of Khata No. 97 recorded with respect to different plots including Plot no. 786 which is a part of the suit land recorded in the name of Mir Sakir Ali and others have been filed. It is submitted that the land in question is also mutated in Ranchi municipal office in the name of petitioner no.1 and his pain holding taxes regularly. 4. Reliance has been placed in the case of Kasturi Versus Iyyamperumal & Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 and Anokhe Lal Versus Radhamohan Bansal & Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 730 . 5. Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party submits that the petitioners are not necessary party and the present petition has been filed after 16 years of the institution of the suit only within intention to delay its final disposal. The suit land was originally recorded in the record of rights in the name of Maqbool Ali, Sakir Ali and Basir Ali who disposed of the suit property in favour of different persons including the plaintiffs by registered sale deeds. Therefore the petition filed by the heir and descendants was nothing but a ploy to delay the disposal of the suit. 6. After having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and the materials on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Therefore the petition filed by the heir and descendants was nothing but a ploy to delay the disposal of the suit. 6. After having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and the materials on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. The suit has been filed inter alia for the relief of declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The object of Order I Rule 10 is not to change the scope or character of the suit by addition of new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claims, but to avoid unnecessary litigation which might otherwise become necessary. The provisions of Rule 10(2) confers very wide powers on the Court regarding joining of the parties. Such powers have to exercised on sound judicial principles keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case. Two considerations must guide judicial discretion while exercising power under this provision. First is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he is best judge of his interest. It is therefore for him to choose his opponent from whom he claims relief and, normally, the Court should not compel him to fight against a person whom he does not want to fight and from whom he does not claim any relief; and secondly if he is satisfied that the presence of any person is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, irrespective of the wishes of the plaintiff, the Court may exercise power and join a person as party to the suit. It has been held in Sudhamayee Patnaik Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo; 2022 SCC On Line SC 1234. 11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. 8. I find force in the argument on behalf of the opposite party that present petition has been filed at the fag end of the trial only to delay the disposal of the suit. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed and the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial preferably within three months of the order.