IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16475 of 2011
Vireshwar Jha & Anr
Versus
Akshay Lal Sah @ Sardar Sah &
----------------------------------
02. 22.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This application has been filed against the Order
dated 01.04.2011 passed by Munsif, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in
Title Suit No.2 of 2007 whereby the learned Court below
directed the plaintiff to add Collector and Circle Officer as
party-defendant in the suit. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the learned Court below
misinterpreted the order passed by the Apex Court in 2007
S.A.R. (Civil) reported in 2007 (14) Supreme Court
cases 253 and directed the plaintiff to add the Collector
and Circle Officer as party-defendant. The learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioner filed the application for
dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e.,
Collector and Circle Officer. In the order, the learned Court
below held that the application of this petitioner is allowed.
According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below
passed contradictory order.
In 2007 (14) Supreme Court cases 253 Mehar
Chandra Das Vs. Lal Babu Siddihique, the Apex Court
has held that in suit challenging the grant of Parcha under
Bihar Privilege Person Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947,
Collector is necessary party. Referring to this decision, the
learned Court below allowed the contention of the petitioner
-2-
that Collector is necessary party. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that after finding that Collector is
necessary party, the Court below should have dismissed the
suit.
From perusal of the decision Mehar Chandra Das
(Supra), it appears that in that case against the decree
passed by the High Court, the parties filed the Civil Appeal
No.6413 of 2000 before the Apex Court. So far the present
case is concerned, the suit is at the very initial stage.
In 2010 (7) Supreme Corut cases 417
(Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors), the
Apex Court has held that Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. is not
about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as party but
it speaks about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike
out or add party at any stage of proceeding. In exercising
its judicial discretion under the said rule, the Court will of
course act according to reason and not according to whims
and caparice.
In such view of the matter, from perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below
has exercised a discretionary jurisdiction judiciously vested
in it by law. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with
the same. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)