Important To Ascertain If Necessary Party Is Bound By Result Of Action: Rajasthan HC On Order I Rule 10 CPC

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioner-defendant under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional District Judge whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati explained, “This Court finds that, under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, for determining whether a party is a necessary party or not, it is important to ascertain that he is bound by the result of the action and the question which is required to be settled with the suit and that, such question cannot be setted effectually and completely unless he is a party.”

Advocate Anushri Gaur appeared for the Petitioner.

The plaintiff/respondent no. 1, in this case, filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery before the District Judge for a plot of land. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking impleadment of the Sub-Registrar Office, Jodhpur and the Additional Collector (Agriculture Land Conversion) as defendants. The Trial Court’s rejection of this application led to the filing of the petition before the High Court.

It was the case of the Petitioner that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for impleading the necessary parties as it was mentioned in the plaint that the respondent no. 1 had purchased the said property in dispute on the basis of false documents which had not been taken on record in the Sub Division. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar Office, Jodhpur and the Additional Collector (Agriculture Land Conversion), Jodhpur, were required to be impleaded to the suit, in order to determine the veracity of the documents.

At the outset, the Court found that under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, for determining whether a party is a necessary party or not, it is important to ascertain that he is bound by the result of the action and the question which is required to be settled with the suit and that, such question cannot be settled effectually and completely unless he is a party.

The Bench placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524, wherein it has been observed that merely because a person has the relevant evidence to give on the questions involved, would not make that person a necessary party. The Bench also applied the two tests laid down in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson reported in AIR 2019 SC 3577 and observed that there is no right to relief against the Sub-Registrar Office and the Additional Collector and their non-impleadement would not render the decree ineffective.

“Therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand (supra), this Court finds that the sole reason given by the petitioner/defendant no.1 for impleading the Sub-Registrar Office, Jodhpur and the Additional Collector (Agriculture Land Conversion), Jodhpur, was for the purpose of determining the validity of the documents produced, on the basis of which the plaintiff/respondent no.1 had purchased the disputed property and therefore, solely on the said ground the Sub-Registrar Office, Jodhpur and the Additional Collector (Agriculture Land Conversion), Jodhpur, cannot be considered as a necessary party”, the Bench held.

Thus, the Bench found no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court.

Cause Title: Satay Narayan Gaur v. Smt. Anjana [Neutral Citation- 2024:RJ-JD:47503]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Anushri Gaur & Aman Gaur

Click here to read/download Order