Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 43 EX 213/25
ABHAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. MEHTAB SINGH JAIN AND SONS
04.07.2026
Present: Sh. Prashant Singh, Ld. counsel for DH.
Ms. Nistha Garg and Sh. Trilokinath Garg, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC
r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of applicants Sharad Kumar Jain @ Sharad & Shaulat
Kumar Jain @ Shalat for impleading as necessary and proper parties.
2. By way of the present application, it is averred on behalf of both the
applicants that the applicants are also partners of the firm M/s Mahtab Singh Jain & Sons
comprising of three partners. It is further submitted that the possessory rights of the
tenanted premises are vested with all the three partners of the firm. It is further submitted
that the landlord / DH had made two respondents i.e. M/s Mahtab Singh Jain & Sons and
Santosh Kumar Jain as respondents in the eviction petition, however, respondents had not
been made party to the eviction petition by the landlord/DH.
3. It is further averred on behalf of the applicants that there is obligation on the
landlord to make all the partners of the partnership firm as respondent as the landlord
cannot curtail the independent rights of other partners of the partnership firm. It is further
submitted that the applicants are necessary parties as the landlord/DH cannot recover
possession from a single partner. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants be impleaded as
necessary and proper parties.
4. No written reply was filed on behalf of DH. While orally addressing oral
arguments on the application filed on behalf of the applicants, it is averred on behalf of
the DH that the application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is further
submitted that the applicants by way of the present application are attempting to delay the
execution proceedings. It is further submitted that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
is not maintainable during the execution proceedings.
Hence, the present petition is liable
to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
-- 1 of 2 --
5. Submissions heard. Considered. Application perused.
6. It is trite that order 1 Rule 10 of CPC enables the court to add an person as a
parties at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in court is necessary
in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit.
7. This court is of considered opinion that remedy under application u/O 1
Rule 10 CPC is available only in case suit is pending and the same is not available during
the execution proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in
Vaddi Govinda Rajulu Vs. Kaspa Venkata Ramanamurthy & Ors. CRP
NO.1181 of 1997, MANU/AP/0016/1999 whereby Hon’ble High Court held that :-
6. The Counsel for the respondents has also contended that this application has
been filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC which is available only in case of a suit but
not in execution. A Division Bench of this Court in Chaganti Lakshmi Rajyan
and Ors v. Killa Rama Rao, held, following an earlier judgment of this Court in
Sardar All Khan v. S. Deputy Collector, 1993 (2) ALT 155, that the application to
implead as parties in execution petition is not maintainable after the disposal of
the suit. In other words, their Lordships of this Court held "that no petition under
Order I Rule 10 CPC is maintainable in execution proceedings. The Counsel for
the respondents has also brought to my notice that this application was filed
under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC which envisages transfer of the interests of a
decree holder in the decree to third party assignees whereas in this case one of
the several decree holders transferred his undivided share to the judgment debtor
to frustrate the decree obtained by the decree holders to take delivery of the
vacant possession of the site and recovery of arrears of rent. I fully agree with the
Counsel for the respondents and hold that the application as filed is not
maintainable.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, application under Order 1 Rule 10(2)
CPC r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of applicants is hereby dismissed being not
maintainable.
9. Application disposed off accordingly.
Put up for arguments on objections on 18.07.2026.
(Gaurav Goyal)
ARC-1, Central, THC
04.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --