LexRAMESH HIRANAND KUNDANMAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMESH HIRANAND KUNDANMAL A ...A... v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS. MARCH 4, 1992 fM. FATHIMA BEEVI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B '>- Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 1, Rule lo-lmpleadment of party by Court to a suit as necessary party-Necessary or proper party-Wlzo is-Distinction between necessary and c proper partJSuit filed by a plaintiff, in possession of service station under an agreement, with lessee thereof challenging validity of notice issued by Municipal Corporation, for demolition of stntctures raised by plaintiff as unauthorised-Lessee seeking impleadment as additional defendant as neces- sary party-Wlzether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in D suit-Wlzether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party. Words and Phrases : Necessary or proper party-Meaning of. Under a Dealership Agreement, the appellant was in possessio~ of a E service station erected on the land held by the second r~spondent-the y Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, as lessee. The service station consisted of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles. The first respondent, Municipal Corporation issued notice under section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant for demolition of two chattels on the terrace on the F ground that these were unauthorised constructions. )- ~ The appellant instituted a suit before the City Civil Court, challeng- ing the validity of the notice and for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures. The· Court granted an in- G terim injunction. Thereafter, on an application filed by. the second respondent for .;~ being impleaded as additional defendant in the suit on the ground that it had materials to show that the constructions were unauthorised, and it :- . was a necessary party to the litigation, the court directed the appellant to H 1 .. 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R. A add the second respondent as defendant and amend the plaint suitably rejecting the appellant's contention that the second respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party to be impleaded in the suit. The appellant's ' writ petition challenging the aforesaid order was dismissed by the High Court. B c D In the appeal, by special leave, before this Court, on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff it was contended that the appellant-plaintiff was dominus litis and, therefore, could not be forced to join the second respon- dent Corporation as defendant, that second respondent was neithe~ a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and had no interest in the subject-matter of the1 litigation and its presence was not required to adjudicate upon the issue involved in the suit or for the purpose of deciding the real matter and on the contrary, its addition would enlarge the issue in the suit, and that the Court could not direct addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff, who could not be compelled to proceed against a person against whom he did not claim any relief. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the second respon- dent had a right to be heard in the suit inasmuch as the respondent was the lessee, who was not answerable for the illegal actions of the appellant. E Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1.1 Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to su~ every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed. However, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition F of parties. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touch stone of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. In the light of the clear G language of the Rule, it cannot be said that a person cannot be added as defendant even in a case where his presence is necessary to enable the Court to decide the matter effectively. [6E-F, 7A-D] 1.2 A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can H be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.