[Dominus Litis] Court Can Add Parties Necessary For Proper Adjudication Of Suit Despite Resistance By Plaintiff: Patna High Court

Justice Sunil Dutt Mishra observed, "Mere addition of the intervenor as a party will not create an interest in the suit property and in considered view of this Court the presence of the intervenor is necessary for efficacious adjudication of this case and addition is also necessary for avoidance of multiplicity of suit."

"The Court can add anyone as a plaintiff or defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit. Merely because plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded," Justice Mishra added.

The decision came in a Civil Miscellaneous Application filed against an order passed in a title suit by Sub Judge II, Danapur. The lower court had allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing the addition of applicant Smt. Ramawati Devi (respondent No.1) as a party-defendant in the case.

The case revolved around the Plaintiff's attempt to establish that the Suit land belonged to the joint family and that Defendants No. 2 to 4 had no authority to sell it to Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, Smt. Ramawati Devi, who was the daughter of Sudarshan Singh (the Petitioner's father), filed a Petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to be added as a defendant in the case.

The Plaintiff opposed this petition, arguing that suit is not the suit for partition but is for declaration of sale deed as void-ab-initio and the intervenor is not affected by the decision in the suit as she has no interest in the suit land and the law is well settled that if the intervenor is not a necessary or proper party, the plaintiff being dominus litis, the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed.

The court emphasized that according to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, its powers were extensive and allowed for the addition of parties even without a specific application. It held that the court could, at any stage of the proceedings, include any party necessary for a comprehensive and effective resolution of all issues in the case.

The court stressed that the purpose of adding parties was to bring finality to the litigation. It noted that the term "questions involved in the suit" in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC encompassed not only the original disputes between the existing parties but also any conflicts involving third parties. The provision aimed to resolve all disputes arising from a single subject matter by involving all relevant parties and settling all contested matters in one legal action.

After listening to the arguments from both sides and reviewing the contested order, the court observed that the plaintiff had acknowledged Sudarshan Singh's two daughters. It upheld the legal principle that all parties' interests related to a particular subject matter should be determined in one lawsuit. Considering this and the submissions made by the parties, the court allowed the impleadment petition of respondent No. 1.

The court affirmed that the trial court had appropriately exercised its jurisdiction based on the case's facts and circumstances. It found no irregularity or jurisdictional error in the challenged order, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous application.

Counsel/S For The Petitioner: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate Mr. Deep Shekhar, Advocate

Counsel/S For The Respondent No. 1: Mr. B.N. Chowdhary, Advocate

Counsel/S For The Respondent No. 2: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 121

Case Title: Shri Giridhar Gopal Vs Smt. Ramavati Devi

Case No.: Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1303 Of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment