Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 21
CS SCJ 221/24
Uma Devi Vs. Suresh Kumar
01.09.2025
Present: Sh. Arun Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant no. 2.
Sh. Rajender Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
Sh. DS Yadav, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 (through VC).
Matter is at the stage of orders on the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC filed
by the proposed defendant/applicant.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that a bayaana agreement was executed
by defendant no. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff dt. 26.02.2023 and further on the same bayana
agreement, defendant no. 3 agreed to purchase the suit property on the instance of the present
applicant. The applicant is the first purchaser of the suit property through agreement to sale and
further, he has sold the suit property to the defendant no. 3 on same agreement and all the
consideration amount has been paid by the defendant no. 3 through the applicant. He further
submitted that receipt of payment has been executed in the name of applicant who is the main
witness and party for the transaction of the suit property. He further submitted that after
receiving the consideration, all the previous chain and customary documents of suit property
regarding ownership had been handed over to defendant no. 3 through defendant no. 1.
Per contra Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has never agreed
for sale of her house to any person. She had approached defendant no. 1 for advancement of
loan amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs. The defendant no. 1 took two blank cheques and original chain
of property papers of the plaintiff. He further submitted that the present applicant is stranger to
the plaintiff, the whole foul play to execute the forged property documents has been played by
defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2, 3 and 4. Hence, the present application
should be dismissed.
Heard. Record perused.
-- 1 of 2 --
Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred as C.P.C.,)
enables the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person
whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and
completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of
multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision.
There are two types of persons who may be added as party to the suit and they are
a necessary party or a proper party. A necessary party is a party in the absence of whom relief
claimed in the suit cannot be granted. A proper party is a party whose presence may be
necessary with a view to fully adjudicate upon the matters involved in the suit.
In the present application, the applicant himself has stated that the bayana
agreement was executed by the defendant no. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3
agreed to purchase the suit property on the instance of the applicant. The applicant is not
claiming himself to be either the purchaser or the seller; rather, he has claimed that defendant
no. 3 purchased the suit property at his instance. Further, the applicant has also admitted that
the receipt of payment has been executed in the name of the applicant and he is the main
witness. When the applicant is neither the purchaser nor the seller of the suit property, he
cannot be said to be a necessary party or a proper party. It appears that the applicant was acting
as an intermediary in the transaction of sale and purchase of property. Thus, at the most the
applicant can appear as a witness but not as a party in the present suit.
In view of the above discussion, the present application under order 1 rule 10
CPC filed by the applicant/proposed defendant is disposed of as dismissed.
List the matter for further proceedings on 23.12.2025.
(Arjun Kirar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-01.09.2025
-- 2 of 2 --