TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court excludes Hindustan Petroleum from suit challenging notice on unauthorized constructions.</h1> <h3>Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.</h3> Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. - (1992) 2 SCC 524 Issues Involved:1. Whether the second respondent is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant u/r 10 of Order I of the CPC.2. Whether the plaintiff, as dominus litis, can be compelled to join the second respondent as a defendant.3. Whether the addition of the second respondent would enlarge the issue in the suit.Summary:1. Necessary or Proper Party:The primary issue is whether the second respondent, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, is a necessary or proper party to be joined as a defendant u/r 10 of Order I of the CPC in the suit instituted by the appellant against the first respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The appellant challenged the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for the demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions. The second respondent sought to be impleaded, claiming they had material evidence regarding the unauthorized constructions. The Court directed the appellant to add the second respondent as a defendant, which was upheld by the High Court.2. Plaintiff as Dominus Litis:The appellant argued that as dominus litis, they cannot be forced to join the second respondent as a defendant, citing the decision in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum. The Court acknowledged that while the plaintiff is dominus litis and not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant, the Court has the discretion to add parties at any stage if their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the issues involved.3. Enlargement of Issues:The appellant contended that adding the second respondent would enlarge the issue in the suit. The Court noted that the second respondent is not a necessary party in the sense that an effective order cannot be passed without their presence. However, the second respondent could be considered a proper party if their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the controversy. The Court emphasized that the addition of parties should not introduce new causes of action or widen the issues beyond what is necessary for resolving the dispute at hand.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the second respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to be added as a defendant in the present suit. The subject matter of the suit is the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, and the second respondent's interest in supporting the Municipal Corporation does not constitute a legal interest in the subject matter. The addition of the second respondent would cause serious prejudice to the appellant and introduce issues not germane to the suit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. No order as to costs.
TaxTMI 