Gayatridevi @ Kushumlata vs Surendra Nath Bandil

Sujoy Paul, Judge

With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 04.01.2012 is called in question, whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was allowed and legal representative/widow Gayatri Devi is directed to be impleaded. This is challenged by Gayatri Devi / petitioner on the ground that although her application is allowed, the other legal representatives are not impleaded.

By placing reliance on Annexure P-3 dated 07.09.2011, Shri Gupta submits that a request was made to implead the daughters and son of deceased Murari Lal with a request that they are necessary parties. Their names were also disclosed in the said application. The same was followed by yet another application wherein address of those persons were also given. Shri Gupta submits that the Court below has not taken pains to address on this issue as to whether other persons, including daughters and adopted son, are required to be impleaded.

Per Contra, Shri P.C. Chandil, Advocate for the other side submits that as per Kanji Manji Vs. The Trustees of The Port of Bombay, (Para 5 and 7), 1991 JLJ 119 [Kanhaiyalal Vs. Shri Ram Singh] and Mahabir Prasad Vs. Jage Ram and Others, in a case of joint tenancy if one tenant has been impleaded as a party respondent, that is sufficient and all of them are not required to be impleaded.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In my considered opinion, the scope of adjudication in this matter is at present limited. this Court is only obliged to see whether the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order. On perusal of the aforesaid applications would show that a specific prayer was made to include all the legal representatives as party. The Court below in operative portion of its order has also referred about such prayer. However, while giving conclusion the Court below has not addressed the said issues at all. In other words, despite the prayer and pleadings in this regard, the Court below has not chosen to decide the issue whether other legal representatives are necessary parties and are required to be impleaded. Only after recording the submissions of the parties, the Court below recorded the conclusion that present petitioner is necessary party and required to be impleaded. It is silent on the issue as to why others are not required to be impleaded. Consequently, this order cannot be permitted to stand. Conclusion should be based on reasons and the rival contentions should be met while passing the final order. In the present case, the conclusion is not based on any justiciable reason. No reasons are assigned, no discussion was made on the other legal representatives who were sought to be impleaded. This is settled in law that reasons are heartbeat of conclusions. No conclusion can be permitted to stand without any reason. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I deem it proper to set aside the order dated 04.01.2012 and remit the matter back to the Court below to hear the parties on this question afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It will be open for the parties to rely on the aforesaid judgments before the Court below on the next date of hearing. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 06.02.2012 there is already an interim order against the order dated 04.01.2012. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to the parties if the matter is decided on this issue by the Court below in accordance with law. Consequently, impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside with the aforesaid observations. No costs.