KARAMBIR Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING regard to the past history of the case and the numerous orders passed up to this Court with respect to the disputed passage and the order passed in COCP No.593 of 2011 on January 17, 2012 in Jai Chand vs. Ram Kumar (Peshi Kanungo) Consolidation, Karnal and others and the law laid down in Razi Begum vs. Anwar Begum, 1958 AIR(SC) 886where the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been explored and the expression "whose presence before the Court may be necessary" explained to read as one which would enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit I would interfere in the impugned order and hold in favour of the petitioner who applied unsuccessfully for becoming a perty to the litigation to protect its legal rights. The expression "settle all the questions involved in the suit" as explained by the Supreme Court in Razi Begum should be construed to mean, as not restricting the scope between the parties to the suit, but to a wider area concerning the subject matter of the suit involving even the third parties' claim and interest. The question of addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is generally not one of initial jurisdiction but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of each case.

(2.) THE learned trial Court has taken a narrow view in declining the application by reasoning that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit and can seek relief from whomsoever he wants by choosing defendants. The plaintiff may be dominus litus which is the correct legal position obtaining but such rights are not absolute to a decree which may injure third parties affected by the subject matter. Third parties' whose rights may be gravely affected deserve to be protected by permitting them to contest the suit. In the present case it is more so when the rights of the petitioner already stand protected by Court orders which have attained finalty before this Court on the same subject matter, on substantially the same cause of action, the there is no gain saying that the application for impleadment should have been allowed without compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. If the orders in previous litigation in which Jai Chand was a party defendant No.3 had been perused and understood in settlement of rights and equally the principles of law enunciated in Razi Begum applied, the trial Court could have passed a good order and given justice to the petitioner at the threshold. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated April 16, 2014 is set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed.

(3.) THE petitioner is permitted to be impleaded as the last defendant and to present his written statement to contest the case.