NASIR ALI QADRI Vs. MOIN YAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This is a Civil Revision against the order dated 12-5-1992 rejecting the application of the contesting defendant under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C.

(2.) HEARD Sri A. K. Goyal, counsel for the applicant, Sri P. S. Dwivedi for the contesting respondents and Sri S. B. Singh for the Bank. With the consent of the parties the revision is being decided finally.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant Sri A. K. Goyal placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1953 SC 886, Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others. THE Apex Court has formulated in Para 13 the considerations relevant for deciding the application for addition of parties under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. which are quoted as under:- " (1) that the question of addition of parties under Rule 10 of Order 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a Judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case ; but in some case, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Code ; (2) that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the litigation ; (3) where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion Shat by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the con troversy; (4) the cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sec tions 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act; (5) in cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if tne court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission ; (6) the result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come and in view of that consideration, the rule of 'present interest' evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force; and (7) the rule laid down in Section 43 of the specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. " Considering the facts of the present case it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs and the present applicant are claiming interest in the property of Smt. Bilkeesh Begum. THE applicant claims that he is the owner of certain property gifted by Smt. Bilkeesh Begum in his favour, therefore it cannot be said that he is a quite stranger. THE court is to examine the case and see that the other party may not be put to an irreparable loss for want of his impleadment in the case. In the present case the payment of the F. O. R. and Saving Bank Account with interest from the Bank is disputed. If the said payment is made to the plaintiffs, the applicant, who also claims himself to be entitled for the same, shall suffer and irreparable loss. THEre fore, the court has to see that justice is done to the parties. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the court below dated 12-5-1995 rejecting the application of the revisionist under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. is manifestly erroneous and is liable to be set aside.