NAFISUL HASAN Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground taken in this writ petition is that learned Trial Court has wrongly allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of respondents vide order dated 4.9.1993. Revision against this order has also been dismissed vide order dated 8.2.1999. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(2.) The said provision makes it clear that a Court may, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party:

(3.) The Court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. However, the 'discretion' must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, 'but legal and regular'. In other words, the Court has the discretion to either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances. The only object of Order I Rule 10 CPC is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bona fide claimants from being non-suited. The power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Thus, the power of the Court to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this writ petition. Moreover, impleadment would necessarily not mean that their claims are being accepted. Petitioner has right to contest the matter before the Trial Court. I find no force in this writ petition. It is trite in law that in considering the challenge to decisions, Courts will not interfere as if they are sitting in appeal over the decisions. In essence, the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process and not in the decision itself. Thus, the Court cannot interfere with the decisions like this unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court.