Kanta Yadav v. Ganga Vihar Colony

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugnstheorderdated 18.08.2022passed by theCivilJudge-II, South West District, Dwarka Courts,New Delhi (‘Trialcourt’)in CS SCJ No. 818/2019, whereby theTrialCourtallowed theapplication filed by theRespondentNo.5 herein under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and consequently,impleaded theRespondentNo.5 as defendantNo.2 in the civil suit. 1.[1] The Petitioner herein is the original defendant No.1. The Respondent Nos.[1] to[4] aretheoriginalplaintiffs in thesuit, TheRespondentNo.5 hasbeen arrayed as newly impleaded defendant no.2 in the said suit.

2. The civil suit has been filed by theplaintiffs challengingthe sale deed relied upon by defendant No.1 with respect to the subject property.

3. Thelearned counselfor thePetitioner statesthathedoes not disputethe newly impleaded Respondent No.5 is a necessary and a proper party, he however, states that Respondent No.5 should have been impleaded as a coplaintiff and not as a co-defendant. 3.[1] He states that the interest of defendant No.2 are adverse to defendant No.1. HestatesthatdefendantNo.2is relyingupon thesaledeed to defeat the claims of defendant No.1. 3.[2] He states that there are several legal proceedings pending inter-se between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

4. This Courthasheardthelearned counselfor thePetitionerand perused the record.

5. Theimpugned orderdated 18.08.2022recordsthattheplaintiffshad no objections to theapplicationofimpleadmentbeingallowed and accordingly, the said application was allowed by the Trial Court after opining that the defendant No.2 is a necessary party.

6. As noted hereinabove, thePetitioneras wellhas notchallenged thefact that the newly impleaded defendant No.2 is a necessary party in view of her assertion that she has purchased the subject property vide sale documents dated 01.04.2015.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in theimpugnedorder oftheTrialCourtallowingtheapplication. The concern of the Petitioner herein that there are inter-se disputes between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 can be addressed by permitting the defendant No.1 herein to filean additionalpleadingas contemplatedin Order

8 Rule 9 of CPC for limited purpose of rebutting the stand taken by the defendant No.2 in her written statement. The right to file the said additional pleadingwillbe governed by thelaw laid down by this Courtat paragraph22 in Kedar Nath & Ors. v. Ram Parkash & Ors 1999 (48) DRJ (FB).

8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, upholding the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court. Pending applications are also stand disposed of.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA (JUDGE) AUGUST 8, 2023/rk/aa