By Tanya Singh
This description is the case summary of the judgment which was pronounced by the Supreme Court, wherein an appeal was preferred against the judgment of High Court upholding that the respondent no. 2 was not a necessary party to the case. The appellant contended that as the addition of the respondent no. 2 would only enlarge the issue regarding of the case. The court while accepting the contentions of the appellant based its judgment on Order 1 Rule 10 (1) (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further clarified the position of the necessary and proper party. The person is made a necessary party only because of the reason that the result of the case will bound the person and the question will be settled for once and for all.
Citation: (1992) 2 SCC 524
Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 1991
Court: Supreme Court
Case: March 4, 1992
Coram: M. Beevi J. and S.C. Aggarwal JJ.
Rule: Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
Facts
The appellant is in the possession of a service station, which is point of the contention. This service station is established, which is in custody of the respondent 2, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) as a renter under the dealership agreement of 1974. The structure of the above has a petrol pump, which is located on the ground floor and an open veranda for the purpose of parking of the automobiles. The respondent no. 1 i.e. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issue a notice which is dated on 5August 1988 to the appellant for the decimation of the two belongings located on the veranda, as they were constructed unauthorized according to Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The appellant challenged this notice of respondent no.1 against the City Civil Court, Bombay and pleaded for granting of injunction, which will hold back the Municipal Corporation from dis-mantling the building. The Court approved the interim injunction to the appellant.[1]
On 9 September, 1988, the respondent no. 2 i.e the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited contended that they had the necessary evidence to show that the constructions made by the appellant are unauthorized and hence, they should be made the necessary parties to the suit. The court ordered the appellant to add the respondent no. 2, as a defendant and amend plaint; thereby rejecting all the arguments of the appellant that respondent no.2 should not be made as a necessary party.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant file a writ petition before the High court of Bombay invoking Article 227 of the Indian Constitution challenging order by the City Civil Court of Bombay. High court also dismissed the petition. Then, an appeal was directed to the Supreme Court. Three grounds by the learned counsel were proposed before the court for the sustainability of the order which is as follows:
The plaintiff is dominis litis
Respondent No.2 should not be awarded the title of either the necessary or proper party
Adding the respondent will only widen the issue at hand
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Issues
The major issue concerned in this appeal was that whether respondent no. 2 is a necessary or a proper party or not according to the Order 1 of Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant
Counsel of the appellant stated the three grounds for the sustainability of the order before the Supreme Court. The first being the appellant is a dominus litis, therefore cannot be compelled to make the respondent no.2 as a defendant. Therefore, respondent no.2 cannot be a necessary or proper party. If the respondent is made to join the suit, it would only enlarge the issue at hand. To substantiate their proposition, the counsel refer to the decision taken by the court in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum[2].
It was also contended that the court cannot coerce the appellant to take action against a person against whom he do not want any claim. It cannot direct to add the parties against the wishes of the appellant. The appellant is negately bound to sue every possible person against whom he has a relief. He can choose the person whom he wishes to take action under Order 1 Rule 3 with the objective to evade the abundance of the suits.
As per the facts of the case, no notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation to the respondent no.2 and no particular dispute has occurred between the plaintiff and respondent no. 2 in particular. The presence of the respondent no.2 is only for the collateral purposes and he is only influential for the commencement of the proceedings by the Municipal Corporation. He is merely substantiating the cause of the Municipal Corporation. The respondent no.2 does not have any direct interest in the matter at hand.
Respondent
The opposing counsel argued that the defendant is a proper party without which a complete adjudication cannot be given on the controversy at hand. He is not disputing that respondent no.2 is not a necessary party without which an efficient order cannot progress. It is on the court’s discretion whether it wanted to join the respondent or not. The plaintiff does not have a say in this regard. As per the aspects of the case, the respondent no.2 is in the possession of the service station as a lessee and contends that the appellant made an unauthorized construction and he has the material facts to showcase in that effect. As he is in the possession of the evidence therefore, he should be made a proper party as without the evidence a complete adjudication of the matters in controversy cannot be made.
To support their proposition, the counsel referred to the certain broad principles which were laid down in the National Textiles Workers’ Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan[3]. According to the principles laid down under this case, the respondent no.2 should be given a chance to be heard in the court of law which is filed by the appellant against the Municipal Corporation. It was held in this case that for the purpose of the public interest, the court must take into considerations all the interest of the shareholders, creditors and workers and that the workers should have the chance of being listened to, for purporting and protecting their interest before the closing of the company. The workers of the company are entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing of the winding up of the company petition whether to support or oppose it. According to this principle, it was argued by the counsel that the respondent should be given the opportunity of being heard.
Legal Provisions involved in the case
The following provisions of law are included in the case:
· Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code
General rule in this regard is that the appellant is a dominus litis and he may select the person opposing to which he wants to claim the relief. He is not compelled to claim a relief against the person whom he does not want to claim the relief. Therefore, a person who is not the party to the suit and is prosecuted against the wishes of the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a party to the suit. According to this section, there are two types of persons who at any stage can be added to the proceedings which are follows:
Necessary Parties: It is that type of the party, which is bound to be a part in the suit as a party. Without the presence of this party, no adequate decree can proceed. If the party is not joined, then the suit is bound to be dismissed.
Proper Parties: Though they are not the necessary party, yet their presence is necessary to fully adjudicate upon the matters in controversy. Their presence would allow the court to absolutely, successfully also sufficiently adjudicate the issue at hand.[4]
Judgment
The lower courts took to the wrong proposition upon the matter at controversy. They misunderstand the matter of the litigation and took the service station as the matter of controversy. Instead of this, the structure of the two chattels which was constructed unauthorized by the appellant was the context of the litigation. According to this, they regard respondent no. 2 as a necessary or proper party and demanded the appellant to add him as a defendant in the suit. They were wrong in this matter.
It is on the discretion of the court to add the parties or not. The addition of the parties can be done at any level of the proceeding. A party can have the addition as a defendant even if the plaintiff does not wish the same. Order 1 Rule 10 expressly provides that the court can add any party to the suit whose attendance before the court is important so as to effectively adjudicate on matter at hand. Any question which is related to the impleadment should be seen at the backdrop of the Order 1 Rule 10 which only suffices for the addition of the necessary or proper parties. A necessary party is the one in whose absence an adequate decree cannot be passed. A proper party is that party without which an efficient decree can be passed however it is important for the absolute decision disposal of the proceedings which is included. The addition is that matter which ought to be decided in the backdrop of every fact and circumstance of the case. The court cannot disallow a person to not to be party to a dispute if he/she had justifies cause of action against him/her. If the third party had some cause of action opposing the plaintiff, then it is upon the court power to make him the party to the suit because the main objective of the order is to avert the abundance of the cases.
In the case of Razia Begum, the court held that to add the party to the suit the power is given under the order 1 rule 10 of CPC and under this case it was firmly established that a party to be a subject-matter in the dispute has to have a straight interest in the matter of litigation. He/ she must have an undeviating interest different to the commercial interest in the context of the litigation.
It shall not be contended that the main objective of Order 1 Rule 10 is avoiding of the multiplicity of the cases, eventhough it is the by-product of the rule. It is only the resultant of the rule not the main object. Persons who are to be made as a party to the litigation must have been significant to the suit. Possessing of some relevant evident, the correct solutions of the questions involved in the suit and relevant arguments does not make a person a necessary party. To become the necessary party to the suit, the person should be restricted by the consequences of the suit and the question which is to be mitigated should be a question in the action, that cannot be completely settled and adjudicated if that person is the part to the suit. It clearly differentiates and provides a broad construction of the axiom between the direct, legal and commercial interest. Therefore, it is extremely necessary that to be able to add to a party in the suit, the person should have a legal straightway interest in relation to the context of the litigation i.e. result of the litigation should lead to the affecting of his legal rights and curtailing them. On similar grounds, the considerations were held under the cases of Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd[5] that the true test does not lie in the ingredients of the appellant rights instead on the effect of the those rights on the matter of the litigation. This principle was taken from the Wynn-Parry in Dollfus Mieget Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England.[6]
Now, as per the facts of the case, it has been contended by the opposing counsel that the respondent no. 2 does not have any straightway interest in the matter of the suit and without him, it is not required for the correct and effect adjudication of the suit. The subject of the suit is the notice which is served to the appellant by the Municipal Corporation. The respondent no.2 is only sustaining the claim which is posed by the defendant; this does not amount to the creation of the legal interest on his part. The appellant has moved against the Municipal Corporation for the flouting of the domestic laws. The bleak demands of the respondent no.2 conflicting to the appellant if any, would only be the breaching of the agreement, which will be formed on the distinct cause of action. Respondent no.2 is only the lessee of the plot; the applicants have the direct legal interest in the context of the litigation, as they own the plot. The matter in the suit is in relation to the two chattels that are erected by the on the structure. Respondent no.2 does not have any direct legal interest in the two chattels and the destruction of the same does not legally affect him in any manner.
Lower courts were wrong in concluding that the respondent no.2 should be made a party to the suit. The joining of the respondent would only led to the embarrassing the plaintiff. The mere contention that it would led to the stoppage of the fresh litigation is not sufficient to invoke the power in the case. Therefore, the respondent no.2 was not declared, a necessary or proper party to the suit.
Commentary
Upon examining the judgment, it became clear that the Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, clearly states the necessary party should be allowed to be added as a party to the suit if they are legally interested in the matter at the controversy. The addition can occur at any stage of the dispute. The necessary parties are allowed because they are significant for the completion, effectiveness and sufficient adjudication of the case.
According to the aspects of the case, court had justifiably given the judgment in favor of appellant that respondent no.2 is not allowed to be added in the suit. The subject affair of the suit does not concern legal interest of respondent no.2 and does not curtail his/her rights. The possessing of certain relevant evidence and sustaining the case of the respondent no.1 does not make the respondent no.2 as having the direct legal interest in the case. Therefore, they cannot be entitled to have the title of addition to the party in the suit.
The author of this article is Tanya, a fourth-year BALLB student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.
[1]https://www.scconline.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?enc=KDE5OTIpIDIgU0NDIDUyNCYmJiYmNDAmJiYmJlNlYXJjaFBhZ2U=
[2] 1959 SCR 1111 : AIR 1958 SC 886
[3] (1983) 1SCC 228 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 72 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 2 : (1983) 1 SCR 922
[4] Vikram Singh Sirohi, 2004 https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/order-1-rule-10-code-civil-procedure-1908.html accessed on 8 October 2022
[5] (1956) 1 All ER 273 : (1956) 1 QB 357
[6] (1950) 2 All ER 605, 611
Cases Referred:
Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum 1959 SCR 1111 : AIR 1958 SC 886
Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd (1956) 1 All ER 273 : (1956) 1 QB 357
Dollfus Mieget Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England (1950) 2 All ER 605, 611
National Textiles Workers’ Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan (1983) 1SCC 228 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 72 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 2 : (1983) 1 SCR 922
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments