9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impleading a third party as a proper party in a suit for partition and injunction. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, co-owners of a rice-mill, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent who claimed to be a co-sharer and filed a partition suit. The respondent sought to implead his vendor as a party to both suits, which was resisted by the petitioners. The lower Court allowed the application under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C., leading to the civil revision petitions challenging the orders. 2. The Court must determine if the vendor is a proper party, essential for complete adjudication. Legal interest, including equitable interest, is required for impleading a person. The vendor's presence should be necessary to decide all issues in the suit. The Supreme Court has held that the interest must be direct, not commercial. In this case, the vendor's presence is not crucial as the main issues can be decided without him, and no relief is sought against him. 3. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that a party should have a subsisting interest in the subject matter to be impleaded. The test for adding parties under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C. includes ensuring the presence of a third party is necessary for the real controversy, avoiding multiplicity of suits, and having a defined interest in the litigation. Irrelevant matters should not be introduced by adding a new party. 4. Considering the judicial precedents and principles, the Court found no justification for adding the proposed party as a regular party. The Subordinate Judge's decision was deemed erroneous, and the order to add the proposed party was set aside. The revision petition was allowed, with no costs imposed due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 5. The judgment concludes by allowing the petition and setting aside the order to add the proposed party as a regular party in the suits.
|
