Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Impleadment Of Parties Need Not Be Allowed If It Would Lead To Multiplicity Of Proceedings: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court in a recent case held that the impleadment of parties was not required in the case as the parties in impleadment applications were already being effectively represented in the suit for cancellation of Sale Deed. Brief Facts of the Case This revision petition was filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed in Interlocutory Application...
The Telangana High Court in a recent case held that the impleadment of parties was not required in the case as the parties in impleadment applications were already being effectively represented in the suit for cancellation of Sale Deed.
Brief Facts of the Case
This revision petition was filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed in Interlocutory Application where the application was filed by the petitioners seeking to implead as Defendants.
The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for cancellation of sale deed. The petitioner submitted that Respondent society without having any right and title over the schedule property, executed many sale deeds intentionally to derail the proceedings and to defeat the legitimate right of the petitioner and if they filed petitions in batches it would result in gross miscarriage of justice.
The application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead them as Defendants in the suit. They mainly contended that they came to know about the filing of the suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of society recently. They further contended that they had direct interest in the proceedings and that they were the bonafide purchasers of the Plots 2B and 2C.
The petitioner contended that the respondents are claiming their right through the second respondent only and not independently.
The trial Court held that doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act squarely applied to the facts as the proposed defendants are necessary parties to the lis and were entitled to be impleaded as Defendants.
Contentions of Both Sides
The counsel for respondent relied on the decision in V. Narayana Reddy v. Smt. Ani Narayanan, 2009 and submitted that Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC conferred wide discretion upon the Court to implead a party if the right of the person can be affected if he was not added as a party.
In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya, (2017), it was held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enabled the Court to add any party at any stage of the proceedings, if his presence was necessary in order for the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings was also one of the objects of the said provisions.
The revision petitioner submitted that there were 2000 plot owners of the Society and if they all went on filing implead petitions, the suit proceedings would never be concluded. He relied on the judgment of C.R.P. No. 391 of 2019 in which it was held that impleadment of petitioners would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and cannot be accepted.
The petitioner mainly contended that M/s Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Plot Owners Welfare Association was actively contesting the matter from the beginning and as such there was no requirement for impleading each and every plot owner as it would lead to protracting the litigation.
Court's Ruling
Justice P. Sree Sudha held that undoubtedly a petition for impleadment of proper and necessary parties can be filed at any stage of proceedings but in the case on hand, the plot owners' welfare organization was representing on their behalf effectively and as such again each individual plot owner need not come on record by way of filing implead applications.
Case Title: M/s Prime Properties v. Mr. Alam Khan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 34