ORDER
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the writ petition1 at the admission stage.
1. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-opposite parties No. 7 and 8. Copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. According to the plaint, petitioner has prayed that the respondents- defendants’ may be restrained from raising any construction over the adjoining land towards west to plaintiffs house and also not to Interfere in plaintiffs peaceful possession. According to the plaint, petitioners had claimed the exclusive ownership of the house in which they are residing.
2. An application was moved by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment as party. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. According to the application moved by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6, they are the owners of the house in which the plaintiff-petitioners reside. The petitioners are the tenant of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6. It has been pleaded by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 that in case the suit is decreed, they may be suffering irreparable loss on account of findings given by the Court.
3. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the suit was filed, relating to adjoining land and no dispute has been raised for the house in which the plaintiff-petitioner is residing. Accordingly, third party like opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 have got no right of, impleadment as party in the Regular Suit pending in the Court.
4. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, had allowed the application of Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 6 by impugned order dated 5th September, 2003 on the ground that they are the proper parties. It has been held by the trial Court that issue in suit relates to adjoining land of plaintiffs house. Since opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 claim themselves as owners of the plaintiffs house, even if a finding is given relating to adjoining land, It may adversely affect the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6. It has also been held by the trial Court that it shall be the subject-matter of evidence as to whether the plaintiff-petitioners are the owners or tenant of the house in which they are residing.
5. A Revision was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th September, 2003 by the plaintiff-petitioner which was dismissed by the District Judge, Barabahki. Apart from affirming the order of the trial Court, the learned District Judge had relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2003) 2 All LR 367 (Smt. Saroj Goyal v. Munshi Lal) and held that by the impleadment of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 as party in the suit, no harm will cause to the plaintiff.
6. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the dispute does not relate to the house in which the plaintiff-petitioners are residing. But the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 have come forward with the case that they are the owners of the said house and plaintiff-petitioner is only the tenant. Even if the issue in suit does not relate to premises in which the petitioner is residing, the finding given by the Court while adjudicating the controversy relating to the adjoining land may adversely affect the future and the right of the opposite parties No. 1 to 6. Impleadment of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 in the suit will cause no harm to the petitioner, more so, when there is no dispute relating to the house in which the plaintiffs are residing. The right of plaintiff relating to the adjoining land is directly related to the house in which the plaintiff-petitioner is residing. This fact may be considered in another way. Suppose, in case the plaintiff- petitioner would have not been residing in the house, there would have been no dispute relating to adjoining land. There is direct nexus between house in which the petitioner is residing as well as adjoining land. More so, when the petitioners have come forward with a case that they are the owners of the house adjoining to which the disputed land Is situated and the petitioner’s ownership right and title of the house has been denied by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6. Accordingly, the impugned order suffers no impropriety or illegality.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon .the following judgments and orders of Apex Court as well as this Court while assailing the impugned order :-
1. (1992) 2 SCC 524 : (1992 AIR SCW 846) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
2. (1996) 5 SCC 379 : (AIR 1997 SC 64) Alui MOmonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji
3. (1.999) 2 SCC 577 : (AIR 1999 SC 976) Savitri) Devi v. District Judge
4. AIR 1995 All 7 Committee of Manager ment, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College v. III Additional Civil Judge, Agra
5. AIR 1995 All 298 Haridaya Narain Singh v. Lal
6. AIR 1989 All 43 Om Prakash Tewari v. State Bank of India
8. The Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’s case (1992 AIR SCW 846) held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. It has been further held by the Apex Court that a person should be impleaded as party so far as he should be bound by the result of the suit and question to be settled. In the present case, since opposite parties No. 1 to 6 claimed themselves owners of the house in which the plaintiff resides, any finding given relating to the adjoining land may affect their right in case it is found that they are the real owners. Accordingly, they are at least proper parties. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’s case (supra) is reproduced as under :-
“6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1, Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision” oh the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have the effect. But that, appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved that, would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely -that he has an interest in ,the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to. advance. “The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question. in action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer. I.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It Is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. Similar provision was considered in Amon v. Rapael Tuck & Sons Ltd. 2, wherein after quoting the observations of Wynn-Party, J. in Dollfus Miweget Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England 3, that their true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicants’ rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject-matter of the action if those rights could be established, Devlin, J. has stated.
“The test is ‘May the order for which the plaintiff Is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights.”
The ratio of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’s case (1992 AIR SCW 846) has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh (1996 (5) SCC 539) (supra).
9. In the case Savitri Devi (AIR 1999 SC 976) (supra) while again reiterating the law laid down in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’s case, the Apex Court held that plaintiff is ‘dominus litis’ and not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. The Court may at any stage of the suit direct for addition of parties and generally it is a matter of judicial discretion which is to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In Savitri Devi’s case, the Apex Court further proceeded to hold in (para 9) as under :-
“9. Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary In order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions Involved in the suit. Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.”
10. This Court in the case of Committee of Management, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College (AIR 1995 All 7) (supra) as well as in Haridaya Narain Singh’s case while interpreting the Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that it is the discretion of the Court to add certain persons as party keeping In view the facts and circumstances of a particular case, For convenience, relevant portion of the Committee of Management, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College case is reproduced as under :-
“The theory of dominus litis should not be overstretched because it is the duty of the Court to ensure that if for deciding the real matter in dispute, a person is necessary party, the Court can order such person to be impleaded. Merely because the plaintiff does not choose to implead a person. Is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(2), CPC are very wide and the powers of the Court are equally extensive. Even without an application to be impleaded as a party, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party, who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle and the questions involved in the suit, be added. So the learned Addl. Civil Judge was totally wrong In believing that Sri Moti Lal Jain’s impleadment was not necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Although at page 4 of the judgment (page 153), while dealing with the point of dominus litis that the Court may consider whether the Joining of a person is essential or not but still he has proceeded to delude himself that even without the impleadment of Sri Moti Lal Jain, an effective decree could be passed. It amounts to play Hamlet without the prince of Denmark.”
11. In the Case of Alul Momonjiand Co. (Supra) (1996) 5 SCC 379 : (AIR 1997 SC 64), the Apex Court had again affirmed the law laid down in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal’s case and defined that who may be the proper or necessary party,
12. Allahabad High Court in the case of Om PrAkash Tewari (AIR 1989 All 43) (supra) held that the persons who are in some way Interested in a controversy under suit, whether the relief has been sought against others, may be impleaded. as proper parties, at the discretion of the Court. The relevant portion from Om Prakash Tewari’s case (supra) is reproduced as under :-
“Persons who are not essential to be impleaded as defendants to a suit again fall in two classes (1) of those who are in some way interested in, or connected with, the relief sought against others and (2) of others, who are not at all interested in, or connected with it. Persons of latter class must not be impleaded as defendants at all, but persons of the former class may be impleaded as proper parties at the discretion of the plaintiff by way of abundant caution or to avoid future litigation and the relief will not be refused on the ground that they have not been impleaded.
Second part of the decision is that even the person of former class may be impleaded as proper parties at the discretion of the plaintiff by way of abundant caution. Here again the case as in the present one is distinguishable. In the present case the application has not been made by the plaintiff for impleadment of the National Insurance Company rather the plaintiff has been op- posing the said impleadment, therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench will not be of any help to the applicant. Apart from that the only provision which has been cited is Order 1, Rule 10(2). Even there, it has been provided that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before, the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settled all the questions involved in the suit be added. It is significant that one of the very necessary principle in all these cases for impleading a party is that, only such parties should be impleaded whose presence are necessary to settle all the questions involved in the suit.”
13. While deciding application moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the facts and circumstances of each case should be seen in the light of judgment of this Court and the Apex Court. Some of them have been referred by the petitioner’s counsel himself, referred hereinabove. The right of plaintiff, the right of defendant, the right of claim advanced by the defendant visa-vis plaintiff, avoidance of multiplicity of litigations and apprehension of affecting the right of applicant by the judgments of the Court may be few factors which should be considered while deciding the application moved by a person for impleadment as a party. No hard and fast rule may be laid down for consideration of application moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After all, it is for the Court to exercise its discretion while allowing or rejecting the application moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure under the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Once both the Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction in allowing the application moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then, this Court normally should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned orders.
14. Under the above facts and circumstances, there is no doubt that even if Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 6 are not the necessary parties, they are the proper parties, so that they may be bound by the Judgments of the Courts under the present suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation as they claim themselves as owners of premises in which the plaintiff-petitioners are residing and the land in dispute is situated adjoining to the said house. It is because of plaintiffs residence in the present premises, the dispute relating to land in suit had arisen. Hence, Opposite Parties Nos, 1 to 6 are the proper parties. Judgment and Order of the Court below does not suffer from any impropriety and illegality. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit, dismissed in limine. No order as to dost.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.