KANWAR SINGH SAINI v. MOHD YUSUF AND ANR

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.11.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 10071/2013 in CS(OS) 3102/2012, which was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of two persons — Mr Ved Prakash Saini and Mr Mohar Pal Singh— as defendant Nos. 3 and 4.

2. We are not going into the reasons as to why the impleadment was sought. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the 2015:DHC:2931-DB necessary parameters for considering an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC have not at all been considered by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the said application. According to the learned counsel, the two necessary points which need to be considered before a person can be impleaded in or deleted from the array of parties, is whether the person is a necessary or proper party. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the proposed defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties. However, he submits that they are proper parties. This aspect of the matter, as to whether the proposed defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are proper parties or not, has not at all been considered by the learned Single Judge, who has rejected the application merely on the ground of delay. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Charanjeet Singh Rekhi v. Harish Ahuja and Others: FAO(OS) 202/2013 and other connected matters delivered on 07.07.2014. The relevant extracts of the said decision are as under:- “28. A plain reading of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC indicates that the Court has wide discretion to strike out the names of the parties which have been improperly joined and implead any person as a party whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The Supreme Court, in a number of decisions, has interpreted the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and held that it provides the Court with the necessary discretion to implead any person who is either a necessary or a proper party and whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the disputes involved in an action. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court stated this proposition as under:-

29. It is well settled that a necessary party is one in the absence of whom no effective order can be passed. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed but its presence is necessary for adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra) has explained this in the following words:-

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment, we find that the considerations referred to in the said Division Bench decision, have not been granted by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2014 and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a decision afresh on IA 10071/2013 on the lines indicated in the said Division Bench decision in Charanjeet Singh Rekhi (supra) upon consideration of the appropriate parameters as to whether the proposed defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are proper parties or not. The issue of „necessary party‟ need not be gone into inasmuch as the learned counsel has fairly conceded that the proposed defendant Nos. 3 and 4 would not be necessary parties. The said IA 10071/2013 be listed before the learned Single Judge in the first instance on 09.04.2015. The appeal is allowed as above.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 26, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SR