Skip to main content

Plaintiff being dominus litis has complete freedom to choose parties to the action

In Rajendra Yadav V. Arati Plastic, order dated 04-01-2018, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee, J., decided a petition wherein it was held that a stranger claiming to be a co-sharer in the suit property was not entitled to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff when the original plaintiff opposes such inclusion.

The petitioner was the original plaintiff in a suit for eviction of a licensee. By the impugned order, the trial court allowed a stranger to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff upon such stranger claiming to be a co-sharer of the property with the original plaintiff. The present petitioner-original plaintiff, aggrieved by the said order, filed the instant petition.

The High Court, after going through the records and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, was of the view that it was always open to the petitioner to oppose or embrace the said stranger as a co-sharer. Once the petitioner opposed the alleged co-sharer, the alleged co-sharer was not entitled to jump in as a co-plaintiff and the trial court was completely wrong in adding the alleged co-sharer as an added plaintiff. Indeed, the plaintiff being dominus litis (Master of the suit) and having the carriage of proceedings has complete freedom to choose parties to the action. By the impugned order, the trial court virtually granted a declaration in favor of a stranger without any evidence or other material available to the Court. Merely because a person asserts that he is a co-sharer does not make him a co-sharer. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned order of the learned trial court was set aside so far as it permitted the alleged co-sharer to join the said suit as a co-plaintiff. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more