2006 (8) TMI 697 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicants Allowed in Suit for Property Dispute: Necessary Parties for Proper Adjudication Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Amit Uppal and Ors. Versus Surinder Mohan Arora and Ors.

The HC set aside the trial court's order and allowed the revision petition, permitting the applicants to be impleaded in the civil suit under Order 1 Rule ... - Issues:1. Impleadment of parties in a civil suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.Analysis:The revision petition was filed against the order declining the application for impleading the petitioners as parties to the suit. The petitioners claimed ownership of a plot and lawful possession, stating that the plaintiff raised a wall to block their passage illegally. The plaintiff argued that he cannot be compelled to litigate against a person not selected as a defendant and that the suit was for a mandatory injunction regarding a strip of land, not against the applicants. The trial court rejected the application, stating that the controversy could be resolved between existing parties. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Improvement Trust for property allegedly owned by the applicants, making their presence necessary for adjudication.The High Court noted that the applicants were involved in another suit with similar claims of ownership over the disputed property. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Improvement Trust, despite their denial of ownership, directly impacting the applicants as claimed owners in possession. Therefore, the applicants were deemed necessary parties, and their application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside the previous order and granting permission for the applicants to be impleaded in the suit.