Patna High CourtChandradeo Prasad vs Anish Khan And Ors on 13 April, 2023Author:Sunil Dutta MishraBench:Sunil Dutta MishraIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.862 of 2018\n\n     ======================================================\n     Chandradeo Prasad, S/o Late Jahuri Sao, resident of Village- Panchanpur,\n     P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.\n\n\n                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s\n                                           Versus\n\n\n1.   Anish Khan\n2.   Shahjehan Khan.\n3.   Kashim Khan, All 1 to 3 sons of Late Samshuddin Khan, All resident of\n     Village- Panchanpur, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.\n4.   The State of Bihar, through Collector, Gaya, Gaya Collecteriate, P.S. Civil\n     Lines, District- Gaya.\n\n\n                                                                 ... ... Respondent/s\n     ======================================================\n     Appearance :\n     For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate\n     For the Respondent/s       :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate\n     ======================================================\n     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA\n\n                                    CAV JUDGMENTDate : 13-04-2023\n\n                            Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been\n\n      filed underArticle 227of the Constitution of India against the\n\n      order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 35 of 2016 by\n\n      learned Sub-Judge-1, Gaya whereby a petition dated 18.12.2017\n\n      filed by intervenor - respondent 1 st party under Order 1 Rule 10\n      Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20232/8(2) read withSection 151of the Code of Civil Procedure to add\n\nthem as party- defendant in the suit has been allowed.3. Petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed the Title\n\nSuit bearing Title Suit No. 35 of 2016 for declaration of his\n\nright, title and interest over the suit property. The claim of the\n\npetitioner / plaintiff is that the suit land had been settled by the\n\nex-landlady in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner and now\n\nin amicable partition entire 12 decimal has been allotted in the\n\nshare of this petitioner who came in possession over the same\n\nbut during the Revisional Survey the authorities given wrong\n\narea as well as wrongly shown in the name of Anabad Sarv\n\nSadharan as ditch despite the fact that there was no ditch. Due to\n\nthis fact, the petitioner / plaintiff filed this suit against the State\n\nof Bihar and no relief has been claimed against any other.4. The respondent 1st party (i.e. Respondent Nos.\n\n1 to 3 / private respondents) filed a petition under Order 1 Rule\n\n10 (2)CPCread withSection 151CPC praying therein to add\n\nthem as defendants claiming to be settlee of the suit land\n\nthrough Hukumnama and Zamindari rent receipts issued to them\n\nand they have constructed their house over the same and they\n\nare in joint possession on the suit land which has been allowed\n\nby the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner filed this\n     Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20233/8Miscellaneous Application.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has\n\nsubmitted that no relief has been claimed against the intervenors\n\nand plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit so the plaintiff cannot be\n\ncompelled to contest against the stranger. The inclusion of\n\nintervenors as defendants will change the scope and nature of\n\npresent suit from simple declaratory title suit into a complex suit\n\nand if the intervenors have any claim in the suit property they\n\nhave the liberty to seek their remedy by filing independent suit\n\nand they cannot compel the petitioner to fight with them.\n\nFurther, it is submitted that evidence of plaintiff has already\n\nbeen started and intervention of intervenors as party defendants\n\nin the suit will prejudice the case of the plaintiff / petitioner.\n\nLearned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the\n\nlearned trial Court passed the erroneous order allowing the\n\npetition of respondent 1st party to implead them as defendants\n\nwhich is liable to be set aside.6. Learned counsel              for the intervenors /\n\nrespondents 1st party has submitted that respondent 1st party is a\n\nnecessary party in the suit for the purpose of proper adjudication\n\nof the case and order impugned carries no infirmity or illegality\n\nfor interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. He\n     Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20234/8has submitted that the suit land is in the possession of the family\n\nof respondent 1st party on which they have made pucca house\n\nand resides with their respective families but during the\n\nRevisional Survey the same has been recorded as ANABAD\n\nSURV SADHARAN and in this regard they have made various\n\nrepresentations to the authorities for settlement of the suit land\n\nin their favour and the concerned authorities have processed\n\nfurther and are doing needful. Learned counsel for the\n\nrespondent 1st party has further submitted that the land in\n\nquestion is in the possession of the family of the respondent 1st\n\nset since 1938 and they also resides over the said land by\n\nconstruction of their house, so they have valid interest over the\n\nsaid land, hence they are necessary parties for proper\n\nadjudication of the suit. Lastly, it has been submitted that there\n\nis no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and the\n\ndiscretion exercised by the learned Court below is not required\n\nto be interfered as the same is not unreasonable or perverse.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next\n\nsubmitted that the defendants / respondent 1st party have come\n\nout with the case of their own independent title over the suit\n\nland and have denied the title of plaintiff and the relief sought\n\nfor by the plaintiff / petitioner in the suit is no way detrimental\n        Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20235/8to the right, title and interest of the respondent 1 st party and\n\ndecree to be passed in the suit would not be binding upon them.\n\nHe has relied upon the judgment of this Court inUma Shankar\n\nPrasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Biharreported in 2016 (2)\n\nPLJR 411 in which the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the\n\ncase ofRazia Begum Vs Sahebzadi Anwar BegumAIR 1958\n\nSC 886 and Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs The\n\nMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay1992 (2)\n\nJudgment Today SC 116 have been referred wherein it has\n\nbeen laid down that the person seeking to be added as party in a\n\nsuit must be the person who would be bound by the result of the\n\nsuit which may legally affect him by curtailing his legal rights\n\nover the suit property.8. A wide discretion has been conferred on the\n\nCourt under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2)of CPC. The\n\neffectual and complete adjudication and settlement of all the\n\nquestions involved in the suit is the primary test to decide as to\n\nwhether the impleadment of any party to a suit is required or\n\nnot.9.InRazia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum\n\n& Ors.(AIR 1958 SC 886) the Hon'ble Supreme had observed\n\nthat a person may be added as a party to a suit if he should have\n      Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20236/8a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation.10. Even without an application for being\n\nimpleaded as a party, the Court may, at any stage of the\n\nproceedings order that the name of any party, who ought to have\n\njoined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence\n\nbefore the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court\n\nto effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the\n\nquestions involved in the suit, be added.11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ofMumbai International Airport Private Limited vs Regency\n\nConvention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Ors.(2010) 7 SCC 417 observed that a 'necessary party' is a person\n\nwho ought to have been joined as a party and whose absence no\n\neffective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a\n\nnecessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be\n\ndismissed. A 'proper party' is a party who, though not a\n\nnecessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the\n\nCourt to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon\n\nall matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person\n\nin favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a\n\nperson is not found to be proper or necessary party the Court has\n\nno jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the\n      Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20237/8plaintiff.12. Having heard the learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that\n\nthe learned trial Court on the basis of the documents on record\n\nobserved that respondent 1st party may be in possession over the\n\nsuit land since long and have an interest over the suit land and to\n\navoid multiplicity and complexity of different suits it will be\n\njudicious to allow the said petition of respondent 1 st party whose\n\nright may be properly adjudicated in this suit and no prejudice\n\nwill be caused to the plaintiff if respondent 1st party are added as\n\ndefendants of the suit. It is also observed that the other party i.e.\n\nState of Bihar has already admits impliedly the illegal\n\npossession of respondent 1st party. Accordingly, in the interest of\n\njustice, the petition of respondent 1st party to add their name as\n\ndefendants has been allowed.13. The learned trial Court in facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case, in its judicial discretion, by reasoned\n\norder allowed the petition of respondent 1 st party to add them as\n\ndefendants in the Suit and there is no reason or ground made out\n\nto interfere in exercise of this Court's power underArticle 227of the Constitution of India, with the impugned order passed by\n\nthe learned trail Court.Patna High Court C.Misc. No.862 of 2018 dt.13-04-20238/814. This Civil Miscellaneous Application is,\n\n                    accordingly, dismissed.(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)\n\nshweta/-AFR/NAFR             NAFR\nCAV DATE             07.02.2023\nUploading Date       13.04.2023\nTransmission Date    N/A