Kerala HC: Can’t Condone Delay in Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Scope of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters is Extremely Limited  ||  Bom. HC: Release of Film ‘Hamare Baarah’ Permitted After Agreement on Deletion of Certain Portions  ||  All. HC: Without Magistrate’s Permission, Investigation into Non-Cognizable Offence Illegal  ||  Himachal Pradesh High Court: Timeline Cannot be Imposed on Speakers to Decide Resignations of MLAs  ||  Ker. HC: In Quashing Proc. Courts to Look at All Circumstances to See if Case Initiated With Malice  ||  Kar. HC: Women Epicentres of Family Life, Deserve Preferential Treatment in Matters Relating to Bail  ||  Ker. HC: Order Holding Malabar Parota Similar to Bread and Exigible at 5% GST, Stayed  ||  Special Lok Adalat to be Organized by the Supreme Court from July 29  ||  Cal. HC: Bengal Govt. to Ensure Reservation in all Public Employment to Transgender Persons    

Swami Rupendra Prakash Disciple Swami Hansprakash Vs. Vijay Kumar Malik and Ors. - (High Court of Uttarakhand) (25 Jan 2021)

Plaintiff, being the dominus litis, has a right to choose the person against whom he wish to litigate and cannot be compelled to implead a stranger as party to the suit

MANU/UC/0028/2021

Property

Present writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the Additional Civil Judge. The trial Court, vide its order has allowed the application with cost stating that, all the aggrieved parties must be allowed to be impleaded and contest the suit. The Petitioner/Plaintiff would submit that, the Petitioner/Plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to implead a stranger as party to the suit.

The general rule regarding impleading of parties is that, the Petitioner/Plaintiff, being the dominus litis, has a right to choose the person against whom he wish to litigate and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief.

In the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a suit, Plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a person in a suit for specific performance, against his wish and more particularly with respect to a person against whom no relief has been claimed by the Plaintiff.

In the case at hand, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent prohibitory injunction; no relief for declaration has been sought therein. As it is a simpliciter suit for injunction and no relief has been sought against the Respondent no. 1, there is no justification to add him as a party. Moreover, nothing has been brought on record by the Respondent no. 1 to show that, he is a necessary or proper party to the suit, and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. Besides the Plaintiff, Defendant nos. 2 and 4 has also filed objections to the impleadment application wherein they have specifically stated that, the applicant/respondent no. 1 was never a member of the said Society. In the opinion of present Court, the Respondent no. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, that the Plaintiff being the dominus litis, has a right to choose his opponents; he cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit; no person can compel the Plaintiff to allow such person to become co-plaintiff or Defendant in the suit, more particularly with respect to a person against whom no relief has been sought.

The trial Court has committed error of law in allowing the application moved by the Respondent no. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Trial Court, without having considered the fact that whether the applicant is proper and necessary party to the suit, or not, has allowed the application in a very cryptic and mechanical manner. A sole reason has been shown by the trial Court that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation only, application is liable to be allowed; no cogent reason has been recorded by the trial Court. Impugned order is set-aside. Petition allowed.

Relevant : Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others MANU/SC/0977/2019

Tags : PROPER PARTY   IMPLEADMENT   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved