Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Court Can Add Or Remove Parties For Determination Of Dispute Without Protraction Or Inconvenience: J&K High Court

Clarifying the position on Order 1 Rule(2) Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“That though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on an application or without application of either party, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of such a party would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and conclusively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit”.

Background:

The case involved petitioner Mangal Singh who had filed a suit seeking possession of land against respondent Babu Singh. During the proceedings, Babu Singh's brothers (respondents 1-4) applied to be added as party defendants, claiming joint ownership of the land. The trial court allowed their application, prompting Mangal Singh to challenge it in the High Court.

Challenging the order the petitioner argued against the impleadment of respondents 1 to 4, stating that their claim was collusive. On the other hand respondents 1 to 4 contended that they were joint owners of the land and should be made parties to the suit.

After scrutinising the rival contentions Justice Wani citing Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, emphasized the court's discretion to strike out improperly joined parties or add necessary parties.

The bench stated that the object of the rule to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter was that the dispute is determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, or inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Shedding light on the distinction between necessary and proper parties the bench cited State of Assam Vs Union of India” reported in 2010 (10) SCC and observed, “that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whom absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings”.

Upon perusing the record the court further noted that the presence of respondents 1 to 4 was necessary to effectively adjudicate the matter and settle all questions involved in the suit.

“The trial court, seemingly has rightly held that the applicants-respondents 2 to 5 herein are necessary party to the suit while placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court referred in the impugned order”, the bench remarked.

Accordingly the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Mangal Singh Vs Balbir Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment