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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
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