Sh. Govind Ram v. Sh. Sunny Chaudhary & Ors.

1. This revision petition lays a challenge to an order dated 19.10.2022 whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein, who is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (at present, Municipal Corporation of Delhi) as a party Defendant.

2. Petitioner approached the Trial Court filing Civil Suit No. 211 of 2017 seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Defendants No. 1 to 3 therein. It is the case of the Petitioner that there are four flats in the suit property with common rights to use entrance, stairs, passage, parking and other common facilities with a separate space for lift and Plaintiff has right on 1/3rd space for parking in the lower ground floor/basement as per the sale deed dated 06.08.2008. It is stated that before purchasing the property, the layout plan of the building was approved by the MCD demarcating the different areas in the building for different purposes including the areas of common facilities, parking and the lift. However, the Defendants have unlawfully encroached the space around the lift and have also constructed rooms in certain areas against the approved layout plan. It is in this backdrop that the Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to implead EDMC as Defendant No. 4 since the layout plan has been approved by the Municipal Corporation and the Authority would be the best judge to shed light on the encroachments by the Defendants.

3. The Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, dismissed the application on the ground that: (a) EDMC has merged with other municipalities and there is no separate entity as EDMC, at this stage; (b) if required, direction can be passed to the MCD regarding the illegal construction, if any and for this purpose there is no requirement to implead MCD as a party; and (c) in the entire suit, no relief has been sought against EDMC/MCD.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that MCD is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case since the layout of the building is approved by the MCD and its stand therefore will be relevant for the purpose of deciding the encroachments by the Defendants. In support, Petitioner has also placed on record the approved layout plan. It is also contended that a necessary party is one in the absence of which no effective decree can be passed and in this case, the whole dispute is with respect to demarcation of common areas and which cannot be decided in the absence of the MCD.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The scope and ambit of an application under Order I Rule 10

(ii) CPC is well settled and hardly needs reiteration. The intent and purpose of the provision is to add parties, necessary or proper, to enable effective and complete adjudication of all questions that arise for consideration before the Court.

7. From a perusal of the plaint, which is placed on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties to the lis pertains to alleged encroachment and unauthorized construction in certain portions of the suit property and the layout plan approved by the MCD. In my opinion, MCD is certainly a proper party, if not a necessary party, whose stand will be relevant in effectively adjudicating the issues arising in the suit and the relief claimed. Merely, on account of the fact that currently there is no separate entity as EDMC, the application could not have been dismissed by the Trial Court as MCD can be impleaded.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is set aside, impleading MCD as Defendant No. 4 in the suit.

9. Amended memo of parties shall be filed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court and further steps shall be taken to serve the newly added Defendant.

10. Copy of the layout plan shall be placed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court.

11. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.