Final Order 2

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 3889 OF 2020
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 201 OF 2013
(C.N.R.No.MHCC01–002667-2020)
Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra ] .. Applicant.
In the matter between :
Shrikant Baburao Kumbhar ] ..Plaintiff.
V/s.
The State of Maharahstra & Anr. ] ..Defendants.
Appearance :
Plaintiff in person.
Advocate Mr. Prasad Pathare for applicant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2024
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/Intervener has taken out present Chamber
Summons for directing the plaintiff to implead him as party defendant.
2. It is averred by the applicant that he is original complainant
-- 1 of 6 --
2
and had filed complaint against the plaintiff before defendant No.2. The
plaintiff was prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act and was arrested pursuant to a complaint made by the
complainant in a trap case. The plaintiff had filed suit No.3895/2011
against the applicant alleging malicious prosecution and defamation
and claimed compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.10,81,000/-.
The applicant filed his written statement in the said suit and has taken
serious technical objection regarding maintainability of the suit.
Apprehending negative fall out of the above defense taken by applicant
in his written statement in suit No.3895/2011, plaintiff has filed present
suit against State of Maharashtra and Another on identical facts and
identical reliefs. It is further contended that facts make it clear that
without applicant and without defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein, the entire
prosecution of the plaintiff under the Prevention of Corruption Act
would never have happened. This fact make it clear that applicant is not
just a proper party but a necessary party to the present suit. Hence,
applicant prayed that he be permitted to intervene and/or be added as
party defendant in the present suit No.201/2013. Consequently,
applicant prayed for allowing Chamber Summons.
3. Plaintiff has filed reply to Chamber Summons and strongly
opposed the same by submitting that applicant is neither a necessary
nor proper party to the suit and the question arising in the suit can be
effectively decided without impleading the applicant as party. Further
no relief has been claimed against the applicant and any decision given
in the suit is not going to affect the rights/interest of the applicant. The
plaintiff has filed present suit No.201/2013 on the basis of doctrine of
vicarious liability in which the State/Employer is responsible for
unlawful, illegal and tortuous acts of its officers and employees. Here,
-- 2 of 6 --
3
the applicant was/is neither an officer nor employee of the State.
Therefore, he can not be impleaded as party to the S.C. Suit
No.201/2013. If, impleaded, it would change nature of adjudication
and scope of proceedings in S.C. Suit No.201/2013. It is settled law that
impleadment as party – if changes, nature of adjudication and scope of
proceedings – not to be allowed. Impleadment of applicant would
change complexion of litigation in this suit and would raise such
controversies as are beyond scope of this litigation. Hence, it is prayed
that Chamber Summons be rejected.
4. Perused Chamber Summons, affidavit in support of
Chamber Summons as well as reply filed by plaintiff. Heard both the
sides. The following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded my findings to them for the reasons stated below.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether applicant has made out case for
allowing the Chamber Summons?
In the
Affirmative.
2 What order? As per the final order
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
5. Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant as well as plaintiff in-
person. From the rival submissions, it is transpired that the applicant
had made complaint against the plaintiff with defendant No.2, the
Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau and in pursuant to the
complaint, the plaintiff was arrested in trap case and was prosecuted
-- 3 of 6 --
4
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and was finally
acquitted in the case. Thereby plaintiff filed suit NO.3895/2011 against
the present applicant for malicious prosecution and plaintiff also filed
present suit No.201/2013 against the State on the basis of doctrine of
vicarious liability. As submitted by plaintiff in suit No.3895/2011, the
present applicant who is defendant In the said case had filed application
for framing additional issue for adding Anti-Corruption Bureau as a
party to the suit. Said application was rejected by holding that Anti-
Corruption Bureau is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit.
Plaintiff contended that now applicant has filed same type of
application in the present suit by way of this Chamber Summons just to
harass the plaintiff.
6. Though, applicant prayed for adding him party to the
present suit, it is pertinent to note that in the present suit no relief has
been claimed against the applicant and decision that will give in this
suit is not going to affect the rights of the applicant. Further more,
plaintiff, being dominus litis and master of his suit, is authorized to
decide against whom he wants to claim relief and to whom he wants to
make party defendant. It is also pertinent to note that it is settled law
that for deciding as to whether any party is proper or necessary party to
the suit is whether effective decree can be passed in absence of the said
party. In the present suit plaintiff has claimed relief against defendant,
the State of Maharashtra and the Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Mumbai on the basis of vicarious liability. So effective decree
can very well be passed in the suit in absence of the applicant. As such,
applicant is not a proper and necessary party to the suit and therefore,
the prayer of applicant of impleading him as party defendant in the suit
is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. Hence, I answer point
-- 4 of 6 --
5
No.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 3889 of 2020 stands dismissed
with costs.
2. Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly.
(VAIBHAV V. PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 17/02/2024 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 17/02/2024
Transcribed on : 17/02/2024
Signed on : 19/02/2024
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
19/02/2024 At 04.50 P.M. Ms. Manisha D. Hirole
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
17.02.2024
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 19.02.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on 19.02.2024
-- 6 of 6 --