Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ 923/2025
Roshan Ara Khan
vs.
Chief Manager BSES and Another
04.02.2026
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall dispose off an application u/O 1 Rule
10 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of applicant
intervener Smt. Mehtab Jhan.
2. It is stated in the application that the proposed defendant is
residing along with her family members in the property No.148 ,
First Floor, Back Portion, consisting of one room, one kothri,
agnai or kitchen, bathroom and toilet with common staircase of
the back portion of property No.148, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar
Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006 as owner of the
property. It is further submitted that the proposed defendant
became the owner of the property as Agreement to Sell was
executed by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of husband of
the intervener. Therefore, it is submitted that the intervener is in
possession of the property and already has electricity connection
at the said property. Therefore, it is prayed that intervener being
the necessary party for the proper adjudication of the dispute be
impleaded in the present suit.
CS SCJ 923/25 Page No.1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
3. In reply to the present application plaintiff has primarily
submitted that the present application is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant/intervener
is neither the owner nor a tenant or occupant of any portion of H.
No.142, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid,
Delhi-110006 and the applicant has no concern with the subject
matter of the present suit. That no right, interest or claim of the
applicant is being affected by the present suit, hence, the present
applicant is not required for the adjudication of the present suit.
4. Before delving further it is pertinent to note that the suit
has been filed for grant of electricity connection at the suit
property bearing H. No.142, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar Matia
Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006. However, the intervener has
filed the application for the suit property bearing H. No.148, First
Floor, Back Portion, consisting one room, one kothri, Agnai or
Kitchen, Bathroom and Toilet with common staircase of the back
portion of property No.148, Katra Gokul Shah Bazar Matia
Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006.
5. In order to decide this question, provision of order I Rule
10(2) of CPC need to be examined which is as under:-
Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC
“Court may strike out or add parties.-
The court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either partly, and on such
terms as may appear to the court to be
just, order that the name of any party
CS SCJ 923/25 Page No.2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff
or defendant, be struck out, and that the
name of any person who ought to have
been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the
court may be necessary in order to
enable the court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon the settle
all the questions involved in the suit, be
added.
For determining the question as to
who is the necessary party to be
impleaded in the suit, there are two tests
which are laid down by catena of
judgments:- (I) there must be a right to
some relief against such party in respect
of the matter involved in the proceeding
in question and (ii) it should not be
possible to pass an effective decree in
the absence of such party. The eventual
interest of a party in the fruits of
litigation cannot be held to be the true
test of impleading a party.
The persons who ought to be joined
as necessary parties are the persons
whose presence is necessary to enable
the Court to effectually and completely
adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit are proper
CS SCJ 923/25 Page No.3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
parties.”
6. It is trite law that a person can be added as a party to the
suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) if he is either a necessary or a
proper party to the suit. In Kasturi vs Uyyamperumal and
others (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that:-
“it is now clear that two tests are to be
satisfied for determining the question who is a
necessary party. Tests are-
(i) there must be a right to some relief against
such party in respect of the controversies
involved in the proceedings;
(ii)no effective decree can be passed in the
absence of such party”
7. What makes a person necessary party is not merely that he
has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved;
that would only make his necessary witness. The only reason
which makes it necessary to make a person party to the action is
so that he should be bound by result of action. Therefore, the
question to be settled must be a question in the action which
cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is a party.
8. At the outset it is pertinent to note that impleadment under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC mainly suggests the existence of lis or
adjudicatory dispute between the parties. In the absence of any
lis, question of determining proper party does not arise.
Applicant has failed to demonstrate any legal or adjudicatory
CS SCJ 923/25 Page No.4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
interest in the subject matter of the present suit, therefore, the
present application is dismissed.
Announced in the open Court
on 04.02.2026
(HALA QUAMAR)
CIVIL JUDGE-01/CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ 923/25 Page No.5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --