CASE TITLE:
Ashok Babarao Patil Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
11 October 2022
JUDGES:
Justice Sandeep V. Marne
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Ashok Babarao Patil
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
SUBJECT
The Bombay High Court has ruled that Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code gives the trial court “complete discretion” to add a party as a defendant if doing so is required to resolve a lawsuit, even if the plaintiff does not desire to allege that person. Injunction simpliciter suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad Bench after a writ petition was filed challenging the trial court's decision to include two people.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Civil Procedure Code
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Court may strike out or add parties -The Court may 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 that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the 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, be added.
BRIEF FACTS
- In Regular Civil Suit No. 209 of 2021, filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli, Dist. Nanded, the petitioner is the plaintiff. In order to prevent the defendants from interfering with his peaceful ownership of the properties mentioned in the plaint, a lawsuit for an injunction simplicitor has been filed. As defendants in the lawsuit, the plaintiff named eight different government officials.
- It was averred in the plaint that petitioner’s mother’s name was mutated to the land situated at Balapur, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. The 7/12 excerpt reveals that Shriram Mandir Devasthan Nila is the legal owner of the property, while the mother of the plaintiff, Devasthan Inam Archak Malatibai Nirmalabai, is listed in the other rights column. Upon his mother’s passing, he succeeded to the rights to that property based on the strength of her will.
- The complaint also states that one trust with the name and style “Shriram Temple Devastan, Nila” was registered by a Mr. G. Rahu and others in the month of June 2020, and the suit properties were identified as the trust properties. That the aforementioned trust has no rights to, or interests in, the suit properties. It is further asserted that some unidentified individuals filed applications to remove the plaintiff from the suit properties under the guise of being the trustees of that trust. The disclosed cause of action for the filing of the lawsuit is this.
- However, the petitioner failed to name the trust or the trustees who claimed right, title, and interest in the suit properties or whose command it was sought to disturb the petitioner’s possession when the lawsuit was filed. He only named the police and revenue officials as defendants in the lawsuit. T. Somaiah and Akkam Kishan then filed an application to be included as defendants in the plaintiff's lawsuit in accordance with Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as a result. The petitioner-plaintiff opposed the application. The Trial Court has allowed the application directing the addition of those petitioners as defendants Nos. 9 and 10 by the order that is being contested in the current petition.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the principle of Plaintiff being dominus litus of his suit can be stretched to such an extent that it will circumscribe the power of a court to add a defendant?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff’s suit is for an injunction simplicitor; no declaration is requested. Eight original defendants are the only ones against whom an injunction is requested, so any ruling or decree that is made in the case will only apply to those eight defendants. A plaintiff cannot be compelled to launch a lawsuit against someone he has no desire to sue for anything. Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 cannot insist on being added as party defendants in such a circumstance. It was further argued that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 could only have been impleaded in the lawsuit if the petitioner-plaintiff had made any claims regarding a declaration of title.
- To support his contention, the learned counsel depended upon the judgments of this court in the cases of f Ramesh Shama Kumbhar and another Vs. Sudhakar Budha Kumbhar and others reported in 2013 BCI 554 and Letcia E. Dos M. Simoes Vs. Suresh Tukaram Shirodkar and another reported in 2022.
- Additionally, the plaintiff has made specific allegations that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10's trust has no legal claim to the property at issue. The alleged trust has nothing to do with the suit property. The aforementioned trust was not established via the use of any legal procedure or with the plaintiff's or his mother’s informed agreement. Additionally, the aforementioned trust is not recognised by Nanded or the rules of the Bombay Public Trust. Hence does not grant the plaintiff any rights to the subject matter of the lawsuit.
- The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the petition.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The bench observed that it was clear that the plaintiff was fully aware that the trust had been registered, that its trustees were claiming right, title, and interest in the property, and that they were submitting applications to take possession of the property. Despite knowing this, he seems to have purposefully solely named revenue and police officials as defendants in the lawsuit. The initial eight defendants are not claiming any right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit, nor are they attempting to evict the plaintiff in accordance with any claim made by the Government over the subject matter of the lawsuit. They may help with the enforcement of valid orders issued by the Courts and the authorities, or they may be responsible with maintaining revenue entries.
- The lawsuit appears to have been skillfully written to avoid naming the trust or its trustees. Because there is no connection between the Revenue and Police officials and the plaintiff, they cannot seriously oppose the lawsuit. Plaintiff is not allowed to ask for a judgement against people who are not asserting any rights in the subject matter of the lawsuit, and then maybe use that judgement to defend his possession in front of tax and law enforcement officials. After concluding that the presence of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 is required for properly considering the issues, the trial court filled the gap by ordering the accession of those respondents.
- The claim that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his own complaint cannot be contested. He has the option to exclusively seek injunctions against specific people. This legal principle is well established and does not need to be reiterated.
- When it comes to party impleading, the theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched to the point where ineffective decrees are passed in the absence of required parties or where the theory is intentionally abused to obtain a decree against uninterested parties/officials and then use it to assert the plaintiff's rights. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the Court to properly adjudicate the actual issue at hand by summoning all essential parties. An application for being impleaded cannot be denied just because the plaintiff does not desire to do so. According to Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, the Court has complete authority to order the inclusion of a particular party to the suit if it considers that person’s participation is required for the Court to decide the issue at hand.
- In the present case, the Trial Court has determined that the trust’s connected parties must be joined as parties to the lawsuit in order to identify the plaintiff's actual interest in the suit properties. It is believed that in order to decide the plaintiff’s action properties’ requested relief, their presence is required. The Court had the authority to order the addition of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 voluntarily and without application. The court has the option to determine who must be present in order for the issues raised by the case to be decided. The bench believes that the Court did not err in any way when it recorded these findings.
- Decisions regarding the plaintiff’s request for a perpetual injunction must take into account the rights that the respondent nos. 9 and 10 contend they have in relation to the properties under dispute. As a result, their presence is absolutely required to ascertain the true issue and disagreement raised by the lawsuit. Therefore, in the judgement, the Trial Court was correct to order the addition of respondents Nos. 9 and 10, allowing for the resolution of the possessory rights claims made by both parties in a single lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
The decisions of this Court in Ramesh Shama Kumbhar and Letcia E. Dos M. Simoes, on which Mr. Gangakhedkar has relied, were made with respect to the facts of those cases and do not apply to the unique circumstances of the current case, as was previously mentioned. The petition was therefore determined to be without merit. Without any instructions regarding costs, the same is dismissed. The rule is annulled.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
