Skip to main content

Necessary and Proper Party to a litigation explained

In Mohammad Yaseen Shah Vs. Ghulam Nabi Rather, an appeal was filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court against the decision of the trial court to allow an application filed by the Respondent No. 5 to be included as a necessary party to the litigation.

The High Court declared that the Trial Court had been correct as it had found that in the original dispute for ownership of a piece of land, both the litigants had claimed their title through the Respondent No. 5.

The High Court explained that the object of adding the parties under the provisions Order I Rule 10 of the Code is to avoid the multiplicity of the suits and the rule authorises and empowers the Court to add a party even for the purpose of the final determination of the questions involved in the suit as between a party on the record and the party sought to be added. The general rule in regard to the impleadment of the parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. A `necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a `necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A `proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more