9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has dealt with the issue arising concerning writ petitioner’s impleadment as prayed by the respondent No.1 bank in its application seeking impleadment. The two orders do not bring out the reasons why presence of the writ petitioner is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Application filed by the first respondent seeking impleadment of the writ petition is revived for adjudication afresh before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which shall decide the application guided by the law concerning impleadment as discussed above. - W.P.(C) 8496/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2016 - MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MS. MUKTA GUPTA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr.Amit Mishra, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.Puneet K.Bhalla, Advocate, Ms.Amita Dhall, Advocate, Mr.P.R.Chopra, Advocate PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find inchoate pleadings by the respondent bank in its application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of the writ petitioner. 2. Concededly the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e arrived at the following conclusions :- (1) That the question of addition of parties under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in section 115 of the Code; (2) That in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation; (3) Where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy; (4) The cases contemplated in the last proposition have to be determined in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The Court is empowered to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and cannot under the Rule direct the addition of a person whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. If the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject-matter of the existing action, the Court has power to join intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. xxx xxx 14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objectives. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally -- that is by curtailing his legal rights. This is the test which has been applied in Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd., 1956-1 All ER 273, in connection with R.S.C. Order 16, Rule 11 which is similar to Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. Again as pointed out in Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A.V. Bank of England, 1950-2 All ER 605 at p. 611, in determining whether or not an applicant has a proprietary right in the subject matter of an action sufficient to entitle him to be joined as a defendant the true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicant's rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject-matter of the action if those rights could be established . 10. It is apparent that a party claiming impleadment must have an interest in the pending litigation if the party has to be impleaded, but the interest must be of a kind that the presence of the party is necessary to settle all the questions involved in the suit. 11. The decision reported as 1950-2 All ER 605 Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A.V. Bank of England, cited in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct interest in the subject matter of the action which was similar to a proprietary right and was of such a nature as would entitle them to be joined as defendants as in their absence their claim could not be eventually put forward. 16. After referring to the decision reported as 1892-1 Ch 487 Moser vs. Marsden, in which it was held that the fact that the person's interest would be commercially affected by a judgment would be insufficient to make the person a party and that that person should be directly interested in the subject matter in dispute, Wynn Parry, J. observed as follows at pages 611- 612:- On the other side of the line in Vavassur vs. K.Krupp, (1878) 9 Ch D 351 to which I had already referred, which established that a proprietary right of the proposed defendant in the subject matter of the action is sufficient. The question here is; on which side of the line does this case fall? For the purposes of this application, the applicants do not assert a title to the property in question, and, therefore it cannot be asserted that they have a proprietary right as the phrase is used in (1878) 9 Ch D 351. What they assert is that if they can establish that they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s rights but rather in what would be the result on the subject matter of the action if those rights could be established. 17. In the decision reported as 1956-1 All ER 273 Amon vs. Raphael Tuck Sons Ltd., the aforesaid view was followed. In said case the plaintiff filed an action against the defendants for damages and injunction on the ground that the plaintiff was the first inventor of a new design of adhesive dispenser in the shape of a pen, that the plaintiff disclosed to the defendant the details of the invention in the course of negotiations with the defendant for marketing the pen and that the defendant had wrongfully made use of the information by manufacturing an adhesive dispenser of the same design as invented by the plaintiff. The defendant, while resisting the claim applied under Order XVI Rule 11 R S C to join as defendant a third party, urging amongst other things that the third party was the first inventor of the adhesive dispenser. It was held that the presence of the third party was necessary to enable the court to adjudicate completely the subject matter in dispute as the enjoyment of the legal right of the third party would be curtailed by the relief asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the second limb 19. Answering the question, Delvin, J. further observed as follows at pages 289-290:- Counsel for the plaintiff next submits that the intervener's interests cannot be affected anyway because if the plaintiff is wrong, there will be no injunction: and if he is right, the injunction can be granted only on the basis that the duty of confidence was owed to the plaintiff and not to the intervener. This argument in my opinion, misconceives the point. Whenever a plaintiff seeks to restrain a defendant from dealing with his property and an intervener claims that the property is his, the plaintiff can say 'If I am wrong I shall not get an injunction and the intervener's right will not be affected: if I am right the intervener has no rights to be affected anyway.' The point is that the intervener is entitled to be heard on the issue whether the plaintiff is right or wrong so that he may be bound by the order made. The final submission of counsel for the plaintiff is more farreaching than the others. He submits that the action and the intervener's claim are concerned with rights in contract and not rights of property and therefore the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
