B N DAS Vs. BIJAYA KETAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 17-9-1981 passed by the learned Munsif, Dhenkanal, in T. S. No. 3 of 1980 allowing the opposite party's application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

(2.) The opposite party is the plaintiff and the petitioners are the defendants in the Court below. The plaintiffs prayer is for declaration that the elections to the Circle Executive Committee and the Zonal Executive Committees of the State Bank of India Officers' Association, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Association), for the years 1980-82 are null and void and for permanent injunction against defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 in order to restrain them from proceeding further with the elections. After the hearing of the suit commenced in the lower Court, evidence was closed on 13-8-1981, arguments on both sides were concluded on 24-8-1981 and the case was posted to 3-9-1981 for judgment. On 31-8-1981 the plaintiff filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order I, Rule 10 of the Code to implead the Association as a party and for consequential amendment of the plaint. The defendants filed objection on the grounds that they had pleaded right from the initial stage that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the Association as a party and, therefore, the plaintiffs petition should be dismissed as mala fide and that as the hearing had been concluded and the case already posted for judgment, the plaintiffs petition could not be entertained by the Court at that stage. After hearing both sides the learned Munsif held that the Association was a necessary party, that no effective decree could be passed in its absence and that its presence was essential for a just decision of the suit. The plaintiffs petition was accordingly allowed. This order of the learned Munsif is under challenge in the revision.

(3.) The impugned order is assailed mainly on the ground that after the hearing of the suit had been concluded and the case posted for judgment. it was not open to the Court to entertain an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order I, Rule 10 of the Code. Support for this contention is claimed from the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Ku-mar (AIR 1964 SC 993) (at p. 1004):-