Interim Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 26 Civ Suit 29/24
SMT. MITHLESH JAIN Vs. JITENDER SINGH YADAV @
JEETU
07.05.2026
Present: Sh. Vipin Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
(Through VC).
Sh. Dilpreet Kaur, Ld. Counsel for the applicant
Sakshi verma (Through VC).
Put up for orders at 4:00 pm.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/07.05.2026
At 4:00 pm.
Present: None.
Order on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the instant application if filed
seeking addition of applicant in the array of parties to the suit on
the ground that they are the owner of suit property and plaintiff
and defendant have filed this suit in collusion with each other.
2. Per contra, the plaintiff would object to the said application
on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of the suit
property. He further objects the application on the ground that
applicant is not a necessary party in the present suit.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both
parties and have scrupulously perused the record.
Page 1 to 4
-- 1 of 4 --
4. The scheme of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC is clear that court
may, upon request of either party, or of its own accord, delete or
add any party, if required.1
5. To implead a party to the suit, it has to be determined that
the party must either be a necessary party or a proper party. The
test is whether the person has a direct legal interest in the
subject-matter such that the suit's outcome would affect their
legal rights (not merely commercial, evidentiary, or indirect
interest). Mere avoidance of multiplicity is insufficient if no legal
interest exists.2 Further, the jurisprudence surrounding Order I
Rule 10 CPC has witnessed the evolution of twin tests to be
satisfied for determining the question as to who is the necessary
party and these tests are - (a) there must be a right to some relief
against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the
proceedings and (b) no effective decree can be passed in the
absence of such party; and Proper party is one whose presence is
necessary for effective and complete adjudication of all the
questions involved in the suit. Thus, the applicant must establish
that either no relief can be granted in its absence or its absence is
crucial for effectively adjudicating the dispute which would
necessitate impleading them in the present suit. It is on the anvil
1
(2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, 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 and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
2
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2
SCC 524
Page 2 to 4
-- 2 of 4 --
of these criteria that the instant application would be adjudged.
6. In its application, the applicant claims to be the owner of
suit property by virtue of GPA, ATS, Receipt, Will, all dated
06.10.1988. The applicant also challenges the ownership of the
plaintiff over the suit property. The perusal of record would
reflect that plaintiff has filed the instant suit for eviction against
defendant in the capacity of landlord and tenant respectively. No
relief is claimed against the applicant. In my thoughtful opinion,
the present suit can be comprehensively adjudicated between a
landlord and a tenant without impleading the applicant. Further,
applicant has not shown any privity of contractual relationship of
landlord and tenant between them and any party to the suit. Also,
the applicant does not allude towards the situation that defendant
or plaintiff were inducted as tenants by them. Hence, it can be
comfortably concluded that the applicant is not a necessary party
in this suit.
7. Now insofar as the status of applicant as a proper party is
concerned, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the questions that
demand consideration in the instant matter is – (i) relationship of
landlord and tenant; (ii) grounds for eviction; and (iii) right of
landlord to recover possession. The presence of applicant is not
required to determine these questions. Applicant’s concern
pertains to ownership over the suit property, which is not an issue
in the present matter. In fact, addition of applicant in the instant
matter will convert the eviction suit to a title dispute between two
GPA claimants which is not permissible. Thus, addition of
applicant has the potential to alter the nature of suit. The Hon’ble
Page 3 to 4
-- 3 of 4 --
Supreme Court in India would warn against such impleadments
in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt.
Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010)
7 SCC 417 by holding that “if the Court finds that his addition
will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of
action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found to be a
proper party.”
8. The upshot of the above judgment is that even if applicant
is considered to be a proper party, they cannot be impleaded for
the reasons that – (i) No relief is claimed against them; (ii) Suit
can be effectively decided in their absence; (iii) Their addition
would introduce new cause of action; and (iv) Their addition
would alter the nature of suit.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is
rejected. No order as to costs. The applicant is, however, at
liberty to file a separate suit for declaration and consequential
possession before the appropriate forum. The application is
disposed of in above terms.
10. List the matter for argument on pending application u/O 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC on 08.06.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/07.05.2026
Page 4 to 4
-- 4 of 4 --