SATYABHAMA JALAN Vs. MURLI MANOHAR JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application some of the defendants have challenged the order of the court below for addition of an intervenor defendant in the following circumstances.

(2.) A title suit has been filed by opposite party No. 2 for restraining the other defendants including the Patna Municipal Corporation from demolishing a part of the house which is in his occupation as a monthly tenant. On the 28th. November, 1975 an application was filed by Murli Manohar Jalan, opposite party No. 1 for his addition as a party defendant. Copy of this petition was served admittedly only on the plaintiffs and not on the contesting defendants. When this petition was taken up the plaintiff did not oppose the prayer for addition of Murli Manohar Jalan and the learned Subordinate Judge without assigning any other reason and on the sole ground that the plaintiffs did not oppose the prayer of opposite party No. 1, ordered for his addition as defendant No. 5 in the suit. In the order it has been, however, stated that the lawyers appearing for defendants nos. 1 and 2 were also heard. This fact has been controverted in paragraph 8 of the revision petition and it has been stated that the petition for addition of party was not heard in presence of the petitioners. Although a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, this assertion of the petitioners has not been controverted.

(3.) Be that as it may, the order cannot be sustained on a more firm ground. The provision for addition of party is contained in Rule 10 of Order 1 and sub-rule (2) empowers the court, "at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit", to be added. This provision requires the court to add a party not only as a matter of course but on the given conditions whether the presence of the person sought to be added is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This finding is a condition precedent for exercising the jurisdiction by a Court for addition of a party. The order, therefore, suffers from this lacuna and cannot be maintained.