Interim Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civil Suit no. 992/2024 Page 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMANG JOSHI
CIVIL JUDGE-04, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. 992/2024
Jasmine Kaur & Anr. ….....Plaintiffs
Versus
Apninder Singh ….....Defendants
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this court shall decide the application filed on behalf of
plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
2. By way of the present application, the plaintiffs have prayed that Tejinder
Kaur who is stated to be the wife of defendant be impleaded as defendant no.2
in the present matter. It is stated in the application that plaintiffs have come
to know that defendant is trying to transfer his entire assets to his wife
Tejinder Kaur i.e. the proposed defendant no.2 and that the said party is liable
to be impleaded in the present matter as a necessary party.
3. Per contra, the defendant has opposed the said application. In reply filed on
behalf of the defendant to the present application, the defendant has averred
that the said application has been filed without any justified and lawful ground
and has prayed that the application is liable to be dismissed.
-- 1 of 5 --
Civil Suit no. 992/2024 Page 2 of 5
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Before deciding the present application, it is imperative to refer to the bare
provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC which reads as follows:
“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 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.”
6. Therefore, a person can be impleaded as a party to the suit under Order 1 Rule
10(2) CPC if he is either a necessary or a proper party to the suit. In this
context, it is imperative to refer the decision of the apex court in
Kasturi vs. Uyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733, wherein it has been held that
necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed
by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in
respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are
those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable
the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed
against such person. Furthermore, the apex court in the said case has provided
two tests which are to be satisfied for determining the question as to who is a
necessary party:
(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.
-- 2 of 5 --
Civil Suit no. 992/2024 Page 3 of 5
7. Therefore, the question that needs to be determined is whether the proposed
defendant no.2 is a necessary or a proper party to the present suit or not. The
plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration and permanent and
mandatory injunction against the defendant. It is the plaintiff’s case that
defendant being the brother in law of plaintiff no.1 and brother of plaintiff
no.2 happened to be the co-owner of the portion of property bearing no. 64,
MM Road, Rani Jhansi Road, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110005
(hereinafter referred as the suit property) and that the defendant decided to
transfer his share in the suit property in favour of plaintiff no.1 for
consideration pursuant to which a sale deed dated 27.02.2024 was executed
between plaintiff no.1 and defendant. The plaintiffs have averred that due to
malafide intention on part of the defendant in collusion with his wife Tejinder
Kaur i.e. the proposed defendant no.2 and others, the concerned Sub Registrar
was misinformed and misled about a purported stay order passed by another
court in respect of the suit property due to which the concerned Sub Registrar
did not issue the certificate of registration of the sale deed despite the plaintiff
no.1 paying the entire consideration amount to defendant. Therefore, the
plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for a decree of declaration to the
effect that plaintiffs are the only co-owners of the suit property and also for a
decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his
agents, representatives and legal heirs from visiting the suit property.
Additionally, the plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of permanent and
mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives
and legal heirs from collecting the monthly rent from the tenants occupying
the suit property.
-- 3 of 5 --
Civil Suit no. 992/2024 Page 4 of 5
8. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in the present suit have not claimed any substantive
relief against the proposed defendant no.2. The reliefs sought in the present
suit are limited to the decree of declaration and permanent and mandatory
injunction qua the suit property against the defendant only. Furthermore, the
impleadment of the proposed defendant no.2 in the present suit has not been
sought on the basis of any right to relief or any cause of action accruing
against the proposed defendant no.2 but solely on the basis of the averment
that the defendant in collusion with his wife Tejinder Kaur i.e. the proposed
defendant no.2 and other persons misinformed and misled the concerned
Sub Registrar about a purported stay order passed by another court in respect
of the suit property and that the defendant under undue influence of his wife
i.e. the proposed defendant no.2 is spreading lies to the tenants that the
plaintiff no.1 has no interest in the suit property. In the considered view of
this court, the aforesaid allegations of collusion and undue influence made
against proposed defendant no.2 as averred in the plaint does not ipso facto
make the said person a necessary or a proper party in the present suit much
so when no substantive relief has been claimed against the proposed
defendant no.2 and there is no jural relationship between the plaintiffs and the
proposed defendant no.2. Furthermore, the proposed defendant no.2 is not
even stated to have any right, title or interest in the suit property which is the
subject matter of the present suit.
9. As already discussed, a person sought to be impleaded as a party in the suit
must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and there must be
some right to relief claimed against the said person either jointly, severally or
in the alternative. However, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any right
-- 4 of 5 --
Civil Suit no. 992/2024 Page 5 of 5
to relief or the existence of any cause of action against the proposed defendant
no.2 as evident from the averments in the plaint and it is not even the case of
the plaintiffs that the proposed defendant no.2 has any right, title or interest
in the suit property and therefore it is inexplicable as to how the presence of
proposed defendant no.2 is indispensable for effective adjudication of the
present suit. Therefore, the impleadment of proposed defendant no.2 has not
been sought on the basis of any right to relief or any cause of action against
the proposed defendant no.2 but solely on the basis of averments as to
collusion or undue influence made against proposed defendant no.2 which
does not ipso facto make the said person a necessary or a proper party in the
present suit.
10.Upon a conspectus of the factual matrix and the legal position as discussed
above, it is amply clear that the proposed defendant no.2 is neither a necessary
nor a proper party in the present case and there is no legal basis whatsoever
to justify the impleadment of proposed defendant no.2 in the present case.
11.In view of the aforesaid discussion, no grounds are made out for
impleading proposed defendant no. 2 in the present suit. Accordingly, the
application filed on behalf of plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC read
with Section 151 CPC is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.
12.Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(UMANG JOSHI)
Civil Judge-04, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
24.07.2025
-- 5 of 5 --