9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the application in revision challenging the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is maintainable. 2. Whether Beni Prasad should be allowed to continue the litigation as a party in the suit. 3. Whether Beni Prasad could be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The High Court considered the application in revision challenging the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge had allowed the Collector to withdraw the suit, which was opposed by the widows and Beni Prasad. The Court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the revision. It was held that the revision could not be entertained merely for being wrong in law; there must be evidence of illegality or material irregularity in the lower court's jurisdiction. The Court found that the Subordinate Judge's decision regarding the widows' application was final and not subject to revision. However, it was noted that Beni Prasad's application had not been properly considered by the lower court, and thus, the revision was allowed to include Beni Prasad as a party to the suit. Issue 2: The Court delved into the merits of the case regarding Beni Prasad's involvement in the litigation. Beni Prasad argued that as the suit was of a representative nature, he should be allowed to continue the litigation to protect the interests of the reversioners. The Court acknowledged that the suit, though filed by the Collector, was on behalf of the widows in a representative capacity. It was established that in representative suits, the plaintiff cannot unilaterally withdraw the suit if other interested parties exist. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing interested parties to continue the litigation in representative suits to safeguard their rights. Consequently, the Court held that Beni Prasad should be permitted to continue the litigation to prevent the loss of valuable estate to the reversioners. Issue 3: The Court addressed the contention that Beni Prasad could not be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Despite the specific language of the rule, the Court referred to various legal precedents where parties were added or substituted based on general principles, even when the rules did not directly apply. The Court highlighted cases where parties were added for the protection of their interests, emphasizing the flexibility of the legal provisions to ensure justice. Ultimately, the Court directed that Beni Prasad be added as a plaintiff in the suit and modified the lower court's order accordingly, emphasizing the importance of allowing interested parties to participate in representative suits to uphold their rights. In conclusion, the High Court allowed Beni Prasad to be added as a plaintiff in the suit and directed the suit to proceed between Beni Prasad and the original defendants. The widows were ordered to pay costs, and Beni Prasad was directed to bear his own costs in the High Court proceedings.
|
