HUKUMCHAND GARG Vs. OM PRAKASH GARG AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 07.10.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.603048/16 by the Court of Second Civil Judge Class-II, Sheopur, rejecting an application under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Through the aforesaid application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, the plaintiff, who has filed a suit against the defendants for claiming vacant possession and arrears of rent, had prayed for impleading Pushpa Bai as a defendant on the ground that issue no.4 has been framed to the effect that whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a declaration in respect of the sale deed made by Pusha Bai in favour of defendant no.2 to be null and void. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties to the document should get an opportunity of hearing and in their absence, the document should not be declared as illegal, therefore, Pusha Bai is a necessary party.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the law and Pushpa Bai is a necessary party for determination of the real matter in dispute and this fact has been overlooked by the trial (Hukumchand Garg v. Om Prakash Garg and Another), Court while dismissing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others as reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, wherein it has been held that the necessary parties are those in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person.