MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. versus REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 06-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 790 
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. 
v. 
REGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD. 
& ORS. 
(Civil ~ppeal No. 4900 of 2010) 
".,....JULY 6, 2010 
-
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN ·AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. I r. 10(2) - Striking 
C out or adding patties at any stage of a proceeding -Work of 
modernisation and upgradation of Airporl - Grant of lease of 
premises of airporl by Airp'prl authority to appellant - Parl of 
airporl land not included in. lease deed in view of a pending 
suit for performance filed by first respondent against Airporl 
D Authority - Said land could become parl of Airport premises 
subject to decision by courl - Application for impleadment by 
appellant as additional defendant - Dismissal of, by courts 
below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Person who 
expects to get lease from defendant in suit for specific 
E performance in the event of suit being dismissed, cannot be 
said to be a person having some semblance of title, in the 
properly in dispute - Appellant is neither a necessary patty 
nor a proper patty - He is neither purchaser nor lessee of suit 
properfy - He has no right, title or interest therein nor is 
F claiming any right or remedy against first respondent and first 
respondent is also not claiming fmy right or remedy against 
appellant in the suit against Airporl authority. 
The Airport Authority ·of lndia(AAl)-second 
respondent initiated a competitive bidding process for 
G modernisation and upgradation of International Airport, 
Mumbai. The said work was handed over to the 
appellant. AAI leased out the Mumbai airport to the 
appellant. Certain land which was part of the airport was 
not made a part of the lease deed in view of a pending 
H 
790 
MUMBAI INTERNATIONALAIRPORTPVT. LTD. v. REGENCY 
791 
CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD. 
case. The said premises could become part of the 
A 
demised premises subject to the decision by the court. 
The appellant filed an application seeking impleadment 
as an additional defendant in the pending suit for specific 
performance filed by the first respondent against AAI. It 
was submitted that his interest was likely to be directly 
B 
affected if any relief is granted to the first respondent in 
the suit. The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of 
High Court dismissed the application. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The general rule in regard to impleadment 
c 
of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, 
may choose the persons against whom he wishes to 
litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against 
whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a 
D 
person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded 
against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule 
is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides for impleadment 
of proper or necessary parties. [Para 8) [799-H; 800-A-B] 
E 
1.2. Order I Rule 10 (2) makes it clear that a court may, 
F 
at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for 
specific performance}, either upon or even without any 
application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be 
just, direct that any of the following persons may be 
added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been 
joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any 
person whose presence before the court may be 
necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and 
completely adjudicate upon and settle the question 
G 
involved in the suit. The court is given the discretion to 
add as a party, any person who is found to be a 
necessary party or proper party. A 'necessary party' is a 
person who ought to have been joined as a party and in 
whose absence no effective decree could be passed at 
H 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A all by the Court. If a 'necessary party' is not impleaded, 
the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A 'proper party' is 
a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person 
whose presence would enable the court to completely, 
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matt~rs in 
B disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in 
favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a 
person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, 
the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the 
wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to 
c secu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.