2013 (12) TMI 1682 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court Overturns Neighbor Impleadment Order; Supreme Court Emphasizes Limited Review Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to review an order allowing impleadment of a neighbor in a suit for declaration and injunction ... Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. - necessary and proper party - scope of review jurisdiction - mistake apparent on the face of the record - multiplicity of proceedingsScope of review jurisdiction - mistake apparent on the face of the record - Whether the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction in recalling its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while entertaining the review applications, went beyond the narrow remit of review jurisdiction by re examining the merits of its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of a mistake that is self evident and apparent on the face of the record and does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. The High Court's direction to recall its earlier order and to direct the trial court to consider impleadment afresh involved fresh consideration of evidence and merits (including reliance on documents filed in review) which is not permissible in review proceedings. Consequently, the recall was unlawful and unsustainable. [Paras 9, 11, 12]High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction; its order recalling the earlier direction dated 08.06.2011 is set aside.Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. - necessary and proper party - multiplicity of proceedings - Whether the trial court was justified in permitting the appellant to be impleaded as a party in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The trial court permitted impleadment of the appellant on the ground that, although he did not claim title to the suit property, he alleged infringement of his right to light and air by the plaintiff's construction. The High Court, in its earlier order dated 08.06.2011 (which the Supreme Court found to be properly reasoned), had accepted that where a neighbour has a semblance of right and impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he may be a proper and necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had consciously adopted that approach and there were no grounds to permit a review that re opened the merits of impleadment; accordingly the trial court's order of impleadment must stand. [Paras 4, 5, 10]The trial court was justified in impleading the appellant as a proper/necessary party; the order permitting impleadment is to be sustained.Final Conclusion: The High Court's order recalling its earlier judgment was in excess of review jurisdiction and is set aside; the trial court's order permitting impleadment of the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is upheld. Appeals allowed; no costs. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are impleadment of a third party in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, the right of light and air, and the legality of a notice issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.Impleadment of Third Party:The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the Municipal Corporation and the Assistant City Planner, challenging a notice issued under Section 452 of the Municipal Act. The appellant, a neighbor, sought impleadment in the suit claiming infringement of his right of light and air due to the plaintiff's construction. The trial court allowed the appellant's application for impleadment, considering that he had a grievance related to the construction, even though he did not claim any title over the property. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's revision petition, citing a previous order involving similar circumstances. However, upon review, the High Court recalled its earlier order and directed the trial court to reconsider the impleadment applications, emphasizing the need to assess the necessity of the appellant's presence based on the relief sought in the suit and the disputed notice.Legal Jurisdiction and Review:The High Court's review of its earlier order was deemed flawed by the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted that review jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised in case of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's reconsideration of the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011 exceeded the scope of review, as it essentially re-evaluated the decision rather than focusing on any evident mistake. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in reviewing the order and set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2011, allowing the appeals with no costs incurred.