Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 1 Rule 10  - Third party  - Application by third party for being impleaded as defendants filed in an appeal - A third party, who is effected by the judgment and decree, can always avail the remedy of appeal - Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC could not have been brought into force, for, by impleading respondents in the pending appeal, no useful purpose would have been served - Application was moved for being impleaded as defendants to render assistance and in case the application was allowed, the petitioners would have taken the assistance of the Lower Appellate Court by bringing on record the evidence as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - In case, the petitioners had moved the application for additional evidence, it would tantamount to de novo trial, which cannot be permitted - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 41 Rule 27. (2018-4) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502


  1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10, Order 22, Rule 1 - Court proceeded exparte  against the defendant - Death of - Application under Order 22 Rule filed within time - Learned trial court committed a gross error by dismissing the application merely because the petitioner could earlier file an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party - The application under Order I Rule 10 and under Order XXII Rule 4 have entirely different purpose to serve and there are different yardsticks for allowing or disallowing the application filed under different provision.   Held, that learned trial court committed a gross error by dismissing the application merely because the petitioner could earlier file an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party. The application under Order I Rule 10 and under Order XXII Rule 4 have entirely different purpose to serve and there are different yardsticks for allowing or disallowing the application filed under different provisions. That being so, the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC is patently illegal and accordingly set aside. So far as the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC is concerned, Man Singh was proceeded against ex parte  in April 2012 and passed away in August 2012. The application for impleading Lrs was filed in October 2012. The application for setting aside ex parte  proceedings could be filed by Lrs only after their impleadment. Even otherwise, if there is some delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte  proceedings, the same may not be taken seriously unless the applicant has a mala fide  intention to delay the proceedings. The rules of procedure are handmaid of administration of justice and are to be applied to enhance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. The trial court appears to have given complete go by to the aforesaid principle of law while rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings.   (182) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (v of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 - Application by Central University for being impleaded as party - Once it is proved on record that the defendent Gram Panchayat has ceased to have any subsisting right and has already leased out the land in dispute for a period of 99 years to petitioner-University, in that eventuality, its presence is very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and to effectively adjudicate upon the lis. (176) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10, Section 88 - Suit is between the plaintiff and the members of his family - The claim is based on a testamentary Will and the lis is being adjudicated by the trial court - The suit is for declaration, partition and rendition of accounts - The presence of the petitioners as interpleading parties is not necessary to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit to which they remain rank outsiders as tenants in the disputed property - No declaration is sought from Court as against the rights of the petitioning-tenants - They have no right to seek partition since they are tenants. (176) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Application by plaintiff for impleadment of transferee pendente lite - Allowed to implead and amend the plaint. (174) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Application filed by the petitioner to be impleaded decreed - Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is maintainable only during the pendency of the suit - A person who is affected by the judgment and decree and is not a party to the same can always assail the same by taking leave of the court - In case the applicant petitioner files an appeal along with application seeking condonation of delay, the court shall decide the application for condonation of delay sympathetically.       (180) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Application for impleading them as respondents in appeal - Dismissed - Ist Appellate Court is already seized of the matter in the Ist appeal and this point obviously shall be decided by the Ist Appellate Court and even the suit of the defendant No.1 can be dismissed, by the Ist Appellate Court, if it comes to the conclusion that necessary and proper parties have not been added, as defendants in the suit - So, respondent No.1 cannot be compelled to implead the petitioners against whom she does not wish to fight and against whom she does not claim any relief. (175) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Application for impleadment at the instance of a third party - Appointment which was originally issued to the plaintiff as Lambardar was later cancelled and the third party was appointed to the said  post - Suit is for removal of some adverse remarks in the Collector's order, the Collector is a  party - Petitioner himself is the rival contender for the office and any decision in the civil court will have a direct bearing to his own position as a subsequent appointee - Though not necessary party, the petitioner was still a proper party to the proceedings and the plaintiff in no way would be prejudiced by such impleadment. (174) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 1 Rule 10  - Third party  - Application by third party for being impleaded as defendants filed in an appeal - A third party, who is effected by the judgment and decree, can always avail the remedy of appeal - Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC could not have been brought into force, for, by impleading respondents in the pending appeal, no useful purpose would have been served - Application was moved for being impleaded as defendants to render assistance and in case the application was allowed, the petitioners would have taken the assistance of the Lower Appellate Court by bringing on record the evidence as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - In case, the petitioners had moved the application for additional evidence, it would tantamount to de novo trial, which cannot be permitted - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 41 Rule 27. (2018-4) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - As to whether the preferred defendant are proper parties are not - Has not been considered - Single judge who has rejected the application merely on the ground of delay - Order set aside - Principles which are applied while considering an application for impleading.  (178) P.L.R. (Del.)
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Defendants are the mortgagees and were not yet declared owner by any competent court - Therefore, they had not any alienable rights to sell the suit land to the petitioners - The petitioners claimed that they have purchased the land, in question - Petitioners step into the shoes of their vendors and they cannot claim any independent or more rights than their vendors - Does not get any right to be impleaded as a party. (175) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Deletion of defendant - No denial that the plaint does contain averments suggesting a concerted action, or conspiracy between the various defendants (including those on whose behalf Indian Hotels has moved for deletion from the array of parties - The court cannot in the absence of a full trial comment on the strength or weakness of those averments; nor can it dismiss the charges as vague or vexatious, with  definiteness. Held, that  If the law as to pleadings is that every averment, which constitutes a step in outlining the cause of action motivating the litigation is to be taken at face value and evaluated on the basis of materials and evidence adduced during the trial, unless either the action itself is barred, or the plea is so prohibited by some law the Court cannot preclude trial. Such being the case, it is inconceivable for a Court to say that the plaintiff should be precluded from leading evidence which any defendant may have to answer during the trial. That such would undeniably be the case, is undisputed by the appellant, because there is no manner a court of law can conclude that a group of individuals or some of them acted in concert or conspired in some manner, without hearing them or taking their account into consideration. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Deletion of name as party respondent - Application moved by respondent - It shall be at all times possible for a court to make even a suo motu  impleadment of persons whose presence according to the court is necessary - This truly exposes the fallacy of the argument that if the plaintiff did not object to the deletion, the other defendants cannot. (182) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13 - Petitioner and respondent No.2 are joint tenants in the premises under respondent No.1-landlord - If these two joint tenants had entered into a partnership later and even that partnership had resulted in change by exit of respondent No.2 and by joining of NS, sought to be impleaded as a party, without the consent of the landlord, it being not a privy to such contract interse between the joint tenants to enter into a partnership and later to dissolve it to join another partner by exit of an existing partner, no relationship of landlord and tenant comes into existence between the respondent-landlord and NS - Petition can well be decided without joining        (177) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - For being impleaded as one of the defendants - Petitioner certainly has interest in the suit property as part thereof has been transferred in his favour during the pendency of the suit by way of a court decree - Even the sale deed has been registered - Under these circumstances, the delay in filing the application cannot be said to be fatal - The decision in other suit filed by respondent No.1 challenging the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner can also have bearing in the present case - Permitted to be impleaded as party in the suit.         (180) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S. 209 - Municipal Council had notice requiring the plaintiff to demolish the construction raised by her and requiring her not to raise any further construction - If the petitioners want to assert their right on the alleged passage, they may initiate appropriate steps by filing suit or otherwise, for asserting the said right - It appears  that the petitioners are raising dispute regarding demarcation of the land of the plaintiff. (173) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Impleading LRs of deceased - LRs who have already died - Application has been infructuous.   (173) P.L.R. 6
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Impleadment of - Subsequent vendees as parties will avoid multiplicity of litigation, delay in proceedings and subsequent objections at the stage of execution which may be raised by the subsequent vendees beingbona fidepurchasers for valuable consideration  etc. (173) P.L.R.
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - In a suit for specific performance, the vendor can only sell to the extent of his share in favour of vendee - He cannot sell the property/share of other co-sharers - With the dismissal of probate petition, the dispute between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the present petition has come to rest and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the present petitioner should have been impleaded as party to the suit.  (182) P.L.R.
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - In a suit for specific performance stranger to contract cannot be allowed to be impleaded as defendant - A person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is not a necessary party in such suit. (173) P.L.R. 7
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Limitation - Impleading LRs. of deceased person (defendant) - Court has left over the question of limitation to be decided with the main suit - That course is in my opinion  not permitted by law. (177) P.L.R.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Parking space has been allocated by DDA to the plaintiff upon payment of certain charges - The plaintiff has not paid the charges - The reason being DDA not having calculated the  charges - Under the aegis of the Lt.Governor of Delhi, concerning same parking space, a decision has been taken which leads in the direction of a right being created in favour of the applicant - Under the circumstances the applicant would certainly be a necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiff. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Parties that are neither signatory nor claiming any title through or under parties that are signatory to the Agreement would not assist the Court in effectually and completely adjudicating upon or settling all the questions involved in the suit - On the other hand, impleadment of parties that are not connected with the Agreement would lead to enlarging the scope of enquiry required to be conducted by the Court for the purposes of adjudicating upon and settling the questions involved in the suit. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
  23. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Petitioner - DH has already become the owner of the property in litigation, in pursuance of the decree of the civil Court - The petitioner-DH was a necessary party and deserves to be impleaded as a defendant in the subsequent suit. (175) P.L.R.
  24. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Respondent No.3 is landlord of the disputed building, in which the plaintiffs are tenants - Notices have been issued by the defendants (Municipality) for demolition of the building on the ground of being unsafe - Plaintiffs have challenged the said notices in the suit - In these circumstances, respondent No.3, being landlord of the disputed building, is certainly proper as well as necessary party to the suit - His vital interest is also involved in the result of the suit - Therefore, respondent No.3 has been rightly impleaded as party to the suit. (173) P.L.R.
  25. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Respondent-plaintiff has claimed the declaration and injunction against Gram Panchayat - Even if the applicants-petitioner have any grievance vis-a-vis  having a some direct or indirect interest in the property and had given liberty before the Civil Court, they are not precluded from filing independent suit instead of chosing method by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 - In my view, view expressed by the trial Court in declining the application cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction.  (182) P.L.R.
  26. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Said suit  is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding - The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit - The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined - The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party - Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
  27. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Since applicant's only claim is that he is in possession as a lessee, when the declaration is sought with regard to `Will' then he has nothing to contest with regard to validity of the `Will' in question - So far as the injunction part is concerned, that is only for restraining the defendants from alienating the property in question and it will not affect the rights of respondent No.5/applicant as there is no stay with regard to his possession or otherwise.   (173) P.L.R.
  28. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Subsequent purchaser has already filed an application to become a party to the suit which has been allowed - Petitioner has snapped her ties with the litigation as soon as she lost her ownership rights over the property in dispute by way of sale and has nothing to look forward in the pending litigation except for being a former vendor of the present vendee to whom the rights have been assigned. ????
  29. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Suit for recovery - Material was handed over to the petitioners/transport company - Truck was provided by J.B.C. - Plaintiff had no concern with J.B.C. or the driver and cleaner of the truck in question as the plaintiffs had entered into a contract only with the petitioner - Merely because the truck belonging to J.B. Carriers was provided by the petitioners, it cannot be said that J.B. Carriers or the driver or cleaner of truck were necessary party for deciding the suit.  (178) P.L.R.
  30. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Suit for rendition of accounts - In the written statement filed by the petitioner, an objection was taken that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties - Although, the application for permission to implead the company as a plaintiff, was filed after delay but the fact remains that at the time of filing of the suit had claimed that he was the authorised signatory of company - Rightly impleaded as party. (174) P.L.R.
  31. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - Applicant has only an agreement to sell and that agreement is stated to be executed about two months before the agreement set up by respondent - Mere agreement to sell does not create any interest in the petitioner for enabling him to intrude in a suit filed by respondent - His impleading as defendant in the case would be absolutely foreign to the issues involved in the suit - The applicant can set up a claim only by a suit for specific performance by impleading respondent. (178) P.L.R.
  32. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Suit is for permanent injunction, wherein, no relief has been claimed against the petitioner - When no relief has been claimed against the petitioner, he could not be allowed to be added as defendant in the suit - It is not the case that the respondent no.2 has been colluding with the respondent no.1  - Even if the petitioner is impleaded as defendant, the alleged construction raised by the  respondent on the alleged street cannot be stopped - As this can be stopped only in a suit - The petitioner in the representative capacity, may file suit with the permission of the Court for demolition of such alleged construction - Application dismissed - Order upheld. (175) P.L.R.
  33. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Suit was filed for partition and during the pendency of the suit the respondent sold out some part of the property to vendees - Subsequent purchasers have acquired a right to participate in the suit as they have become co-sharer along with the plaintiff - Vendees are necessary and proper parties and the petitioners-plaintiffs are also entitled to amend the suit to challenge the sale deed on the grounds available to them.   (182) P.L.R.
  34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - There is agreement of sale - The applicant has got substantial claim in the land and he is the proper person to tell the Court as to whether VR was left with any title in the remaining part of the land or not - The possibility of any collusion between the plaintiff and VR (defendant) cannot be ruled out  - Hence, the  presence was necessary to bring all the facts to the notice of the Court.  (180) P.L.R. 
  35. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - There is no hard and fast rule that the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit can never be impleaded as a party to the suit - Original defendants are not contesting the suit and have been proceeded as exparte - So the presence of purchasers is necessary in order to enable the Court to completely, effectually and adequately to adjudicate upon all the matters in dispute in the suit.  (183) P.L.R.
  36. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Where a subsequent vendee is impleaded as a party on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, then he would have a right to file his written statement to contest the suit - When the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed by the Trial Court, a specific rider was added in that order that the petitioner would join the proceedings from the stage the application was allowed and would pursue the defenses already taken by defendant No.1 and would not be allowed to set up a new case by reopening the present suit from its initial stage - Order declining the prayer for filing written statement - Rightly declined. (176) P.L.R.
  37. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10 - Whether a tenant can ask for impleadment in a suit for specific performance being a stranger to the agreement - Court has to look into the application itself and the person who is asking for impleadment - In this case, the im    pleadment is being sought by the partner of the firm who has alleged that the partnership firm is in possession of the suit property as a lessee and not in possession of Ranjeet Singh, the alleged co-owner of the suit property - There is a patent error on the part of the Court below in allowing the application - Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) S. 19. (178) P.L.R.
  38. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10(2), Order 6, Rule 17 - Whether a defendant is a non-contesting or a contesting party, does not change the pleadings of the plaintiffs or the strategy of its litigational plan - Plea of the applicant-plaintiffs / petitioners for transposing LRs of defendant No.9 as contesting defendants instead of proforma defendants even otherwise in legal parlance is of no significance - Transposition of already existing defendant No.9 from proforma defendant to contesting defendant is neither necessary nor warranted nor is going to change the nature, content and substance of the litigation. (178) P.L.R.
  39. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10(2), Order 6, Rule 17 - Whether a defendant is a non-contesting or a contesting party, does not change the pleadings of the plaintiffs or the strategy of its litigational plan - Plea of the applicant-plaintiffs / petitioners for transposing LRs of defendant No.9 as contesting defendants instead of proforma defendants even otherwise in legal parlance is of no significance - Transposition of already existing defendant No.9 from proforma defendant to contesting defendant is neither necessary nor warranted nor is going to change the nature, content and substance of the litigation. (178) P.L.R.
  40. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10(2) - If court prima facie reaches the opinion that the persons before the Court are such a party as may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit - A party can then be added as plaintiff or defendant - The cause of action of the plaintiff and the applicant-petitioner are wholly different and therefore it cannot be said that the presence of the petitioner is necessary to settle the questions involved involved - Principle of direct interest has to be read with a subsisting right to sue though the results may seem harsh on the petitioner. (177) P.L.R.
  41. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  1, Rule 10(4) - Though sale deed was effected during the pendency of the suit, it would be hit by doctrine of lis pendence, but in order to avoid the technical objections, the respondent-plaintiff moved the application for impleading the subsequent vendee as defendant - Trial Court granted liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to file the amended plaint by observing that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit - Impleadment of defendant in the absence of challenge to the sale deed would be inconsequential - Provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC also prescribe that where a person is added as defendant, the amendment is inevitable. (182) P.L.R.