Interim Order 25

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 459/23 MAHESH Vs. SUGHRIV Page No. 1/4
19 Civ Suit 459/23
MAHESH Vs. SUGHRIV
06.07.2026
Present: Sh. Jasdev Singh Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff (Through
VC).
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for MCD (Through VC).
Arguments on application u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC heard from
both the parties.
List for orders at 04:00 PM.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/06.07.2026
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the application under order 1 rule 10 filed on behalf
of Applicants/ plaintiff shall be decided.
2. In brief, the case of the Plaintiff is for permanent injunction against
the defendants concerning Khasra No. 606 situated in the revenue state of
Sabhapur, Shahdara, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The Plaintiff claims title by
virtue of being legal heir of recorded bhumidhar of a portion of above-
mentioned khasra number.
3. The plaintiff seeks impleadment of all the bhumidhars of Khasra
no. 606 who are mentioned in the khasra khatauni along with all the
authorities whom the plaintiff had approached for registering the complaint
against the defendants. The plaintiff submits that on 05.10.2023 at the time
-- 1 of 4 --
Civ Suit 459/23 MAHESH Vs. SUGHRIV Page No. 2/4
of hearing the arguments on ex parte interim injunction the court had asked
the plaintiff to add all the bhumidhars as proforma defendants whose name
are mentioned in the khasra khatauni. No other grounds had been taken by
the plaintiff.
4. Per contra, the reply to the said application has been filed on behalf
of proposed defendant no. 16 to 19 and no reply has been filed by the
defendants and they have submitted that they are in possession of their
respective portion of Khasra no. 606. They have also admitted the
statement of plaintiff in his application that khasra no. 606 was orally
partitioned by all recorded bhumidhars and all of them are in possession of
their respective portions. Apart from that the proposed defendant no. 16 to
19 have prayed to pass any order as per law.
5. Heard. Documents perused and arguments considered.
Analysis
6. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction against defendant no. 1
and 2.
7. The Plaintiff has not explained as to how the proposed defendants
are
necessary or
proper party to the suit. It is trite that the maintainability
of the application u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC depends on whether the Applicant
can establish a direct and legal interest of the proposed parties in the suit
property and whether their presence is essential for complete and effective
adjudication. It is settled law that even if no relief is claimed against a party
but its impleadment would ensure a complete and effective adjudication of
dispute such a party is a proper party and there is no bar in impleading it.
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
-- 2 of 4 --
Civ Suit 459/23 MAHESH Vs. SUGHRIV Page No. 3/4
merely commercial, evidentiary, or indirect interest). Mere avoidance
of multiplicity is insufficient if no legal interest exists.1
8. After careful consideration of the pleadings and preliminary
objections, it is clear that the relief of injunction is sought only against the
two defendants. The question that needs to be answered is whether the
court can grant injunction against the two defendants without the presence
of other bhumidhars? The answer is ys, because in the present matter, it is
neither clear from the record nor the plaintiff has not brought out any fact,
to show that the relief cannot be granted to the plaintiff without the
presence of other bhumidhars. Further, it is also not clear as to how the
impleadment of all the recorded bhumidhars would ensure effective
adjudication in the light of the fact that the remedy of injunction acts in
personam and binds only the parties to the suit. Hence, the addition of all
the recorded bhumidhars do not justify invocation of the provision u/O 1
Rule 10 CPC at this stage. Further, insofar as the Government authorities
are concerned no relief has been sought against them and if some
complaints have been made before those authorities they may be called to
give evidence regarding the same and action taken on them. Further, if any
document is lying in the custody of such government authority which is
required in this matter the same may be summoned at the stage of
evidence. Thus, prima facie,this court does not consider it imminent to pass
the order u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC.
9. However, if in case the need arises then by virtue of order 1 Rule
10 (2) CPC, the Court is empowered to add or strike any parties at any
stage of the suit either upon the application of any party or exercising suo
1 Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC
524
-- 3 of 4 --
Civ Suit 459/23 MAHESH Vs. SUGHRIV Page No. 4/4
moto invocation of this provision. Merely, the fact that defendant no. 2
claims rights over the portion in which the boundary wall is constructed in
capacity of a legal heir of another bhumidhar of khasra no. 606 does not
call for impleadment of all the recorded bhumidhars of khasra no. 606. The
right over the suit property can be determined on the basis of evidence to
be led by each party and as already explained above the final order that
would be passed in the present suit is not declaratory in character and
would only bind the party to the lis.
10. For the reasons aforementioned, the application is disposed off as
dismissed.
11. Put up for further proceedings on 06.08.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/06.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --