2019 (10) TMI 1277 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of application - Impleadment as a party in the suit - withdrawal of the suit - HELD THAT - It is well settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court - MMT had assigned his rights and interest in the land in favour of JCS. Therefore, JCS as an assignee of the rights of the original plaintiff, had a right to be impleaded as a plaintiff in place of MMT. What is the effect of the legal heirs of MMT withdrawing the suit? - HELD THAT - The trial court should have not dismissed the application filed by JCS. We may note that the so called settlement agreement clearly shows that respondent nos. 2(A) to 2(D) had not received any amount from the appellants. There was no transfer of interest in favour of the appellants by this document. All that the respondent nos. 2(A) to 2(D) said was that they stood by the sale deed executed by their father through the power of attorney in favour of the appellants - JCS need not even challenge the so called settlement because that settlement does not, in any way, create any title, right or interest in the suit parties. JCS is entitled to continue the suit despite respondent nos. 2(A) to 2(D) having compromised the matter and withdrawn from the suit. Their withdrawal can have no impact on the rights of JCS. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order adding plaintiff no. 2 in a suit; Application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC; Dismissal of application by trial court; Appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution; Interpretation of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC; Effect of legal heirs withdrawing the suit; Vital interest of a party in a suit.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge to an order adding plaintiff no. 2 in a suit. The case involved a dispute over the sale of land by Mafaji Motiji Thakor (MMT) and subsequent legal actions by the parties involved. MMT executed a power of attorney in favor of a party who allegedly sold the land to the appellants. However, during the proceedings, discrepancies arose regarding the authority to sell the land. Respondent no. 1 purchased the land from MMT and sought to be added as plaintiff no. 2 in the suit. The trial court initially dismissed the application for impleadment, leading to an appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the vital interest of the applicant in the suit despite the withdrawal of legal heirs of MMT. The dispute centered on the interpretation of procedural rules under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and the rights of parties involved.

The legal counsels presented arguments concerning the correct procedural application and the rights of the parties. The appellant's counsel contended that the plaintiff should file a separate suit, while the respondent's counsel argued for the impleadment of the applicant as plaintiff no. 2. The judgment highlighted the importance of the applicant's vital interest in the suit, emphasizing that the withdrawal of legal heirs should not affect the rights of the applicant. The court analyzed the settlement agreement and concluded that the applicant had a significant stake in the suit, justifying the continuation of the proceedings despite the withdrawal of other parties.

The court referenced Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, emphasizing the assignment of rights and interests in the land to the applicant. The judgment clarified that the applicant, as an assignee of the original plaintiff's rights, had a valid claim to be impleaded in the suit. The court rejected the trial court's dismissal of the application, stating that the applicant's interest in the suit was crucial and should not be undermined by the actions of other parties. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, affirming the applicant's right to continue the suit based on their vital interest and the circumstances of the case.