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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more