KARUNAKAR DIXIT Vs. SHRI NIWAS DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants-revisionists. Sri Onkar Nath has appeared for the heirs and legal representatives of respondent No. 2 and Sri Amit Srivastava for respondent Nos. 3, 5, 10 and 13. The application of the applicants-revisionists for being impleaded as defendant in Original Suit No. 896 of 2010 Sri Niwas v. Surendra Mohan and others, has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.5.2013. The above suit is a suit for partition of the property of late Ambika Charan Dixit. The parties to the suit are his natural successors. The applicants-revisionists claim that the above property was bequeath to them by late Ambika Charan Dixit vide Will dated 22.6.1988 and, therefore, if not necessary, they are the proper party to the suit, inasmuch as in the event the Will is proved there would be no need for partition of the property.

(2.) The Court below has rejected the application holding that the applicants-revisionists are neither necessary nor proper party to the suit for partition and they can get their rights over it, if any, established through an independent suit.

(3.) The submission of Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants-revisionists is that the applicants-revisionists are atleast proper parties. Their impleadment would not cause any harm to the parties to the suit and it would avoid multiplicity of litigation. He has relied upon Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 2 ARC 174; Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., 2012 8 SCC 384 and Smt. Raj Kumari and others v. IVth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh and others, 2013 11 ADJ 257. The proposition of law laid down by the aforesaid authorities is not disputed. They only say that the power of the Court to add a party to a proceeding is not solely dependent upon the question whether the said party has interest in the suit property but whether the rights of the said party are likely to be affected by the said proceedings. Secondly, the Courts have made a distinction between a necessary and a proper party and has laid down that a proper party is one whose presence may be necessary for complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.