IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 65 of 2004
Kartik Chandra Paul ......... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Baruna Tripathy & Ors. ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
For the petitioner : Mr. K.P. Choudhary
For the Respondents : Mr. S.L. Agrawal
07/ 05.01.2009
Heard the parties and with their consent this petition is
disposed of at this stage itself.
The relevant facts in short are that the plaintiff-petitioner
filed a Title Suit being title suit no. 1/2001 in the court of Munsiff,
Ghatsila, for specific performance of contract. The defendant-
respondents-herein appeared and filed their written statement.
One of the objections taken in the written statement is
that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the
plaintiff has not made the six daughters of the father of the
defendants as parties to the suit.
Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application
before the trial court for a direction to the defendants to disclose
the name of those six daughters who have not been made
parties. This application of the plaintiff was rejected.
Subsequently the petitioner again filed such an application for
direction to the defendant to disclose the names of those six
daughters, but the court below rejected the same again on merit
on 12.11.2003.
When the suit was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff-petitioner again filed an application purported to be
under Section 151 C.P.C. for a direction to the defendant-
respondents to disclose the name of those six daughters so that
they could be added as party-defendants in the suit. But the court
below by the impugned order dated 08.12.2003 has rejected
again on the same ground that there is no such provision in the
C.P.C. to direct the defendant to disclose the name of any such
person and that the plaintiff was adopting delaying tactics.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by citing a decision of
the Patna High Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra Vrs
Kameshwar Singh reported in A.I.R. 1953 Patna 178, submitted
that it was essential and incumbent upon the defendant to
disclose the name of those six daughters, since he had taken the
objection of non-joinder of the parties in the written statement.
After hearing the parties and after going through the
judgment of the Patna High Court, I find that in the same
judgment, it has been held that where an objection is raised to
the framing of suit on account of defect of parties, the names of
the persons omitted should be specifically mentioned so as to
enable the other side to add those persons as parties to the suit if
necessary. If this is not done, objection would be deemed to
have been waived.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this
petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. If so advised, the
plaintiff-petitioner may raise such plea before the trial court at an
appropriate stage.
With this observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
SI/Sk