NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Chandeep Singh S Awhney vs. Ravinder Kumar Ahuja &Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Oct 2023)

Court has discretion to add any person as a party who is found to be a necessary party or proper party

MANU/DE/7192/2023

Civil

Present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Courtdismissing the application seeking impleadment in the suit. The Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside as the presence of the applicant is necessary and proper to the suit and its cause of action.

The Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., has held that, the general rule in regard to impleadment 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 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 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.

The subject suit filed by Respondent no.1 is one for mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the defence of the defendants would have to be tried. As far as the claim of the applicant, which is now being claimed stating that, the Petitioner has become the sole owner of the subject land, is concerned, the petitioner has already filed an independent suit challenging the title of the respondent no.1 to the subject land. He can claim his relief in the said suit. Therefore, the presence of the applicant in the subject suit filed by Respondent no.1 is neither necessary nor proper. It would only prejudice and delay the trial in the suit filed by Respondent no.1.There is no merit in the present petition. Application dismissed.

Tags : IMPLEADMENT   ENTITLEMENT   DISCRETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved