Nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs: Supreme Court

jurishour.in

The Supreme court stated that nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wishes of the plaintiffs.

Background 

The appellants instituted Civil Suit against the original defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. 

In the said suit, original defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement along with counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and for permanent injunction. 

After the evidence from the side of the plaintiffs was closed, original defendant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party defendants alleging inter alia that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have illegally and unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land in favour of one Manasi Sahoo wife of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, Bharat Chandra Sahoo, Dhaneswar Sahoo and Kedarnath Sahoo. Therefore, it was prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants for proper adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 

Arguments 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

The counsel for the defendant submitted that as the part of the suit property was transferred illegally in favour of the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit, to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings and to pass an effective decree, the trial Court rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and directed to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants. 

Decision 

The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants.

The court said that unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. 

It was added by the court that not impleading any other person as defendants against the wishes of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

The bench stated that subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. 

The bench stated that considering the fact that defendants have also filed counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and permanent injunction and in case the counter-claim is allowed, as the plaintiffs are opposing to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants, thereafter it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers.

“Therefore, non impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs” , the bench added.

The court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 

Case title: Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v/s Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6370 OF 2022

Click here to read the Order/Judgment 

JurisHour
JurisHour
JurisHour is the fastest online portal for Indian legal news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *