Shyamasundar and Others vs Kesarimal, Rikhab and The Commissioner, City Municipal Council (CMC)

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioners instituted OS No. 245/2007 before the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,], Bijapur, for permanent injunction, restraining respondents 1 and 2 arraigned as Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Petitioners filed IA No. 7 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to permit them to implead as Defendant No. 3 the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, on the premise that the property belonged to the proposed defendant and therefore Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no right, title or interest in the property. That application though opposed by other defendants, was rejected by order dated 5.10.2013. Hence this petition. There can be no dispute that the City Municipal Council, Bijapur is not a necessary or proper party since even according to the petitioners - plaintiffs, they intended to invest title in the City Municipal Council so as to defeat the claim of the Defendants 1 and 2 as title holders while admitting the fact that Defendants 1 and 2 inducted the petitioners into the suit schedule property as tenants. It is not the case of the petitioners that the proposed defendant interfered with their possession of the suit schedule property. If that is so, there is no relief claimed against the proposed defendant.

In the aforesaid facts, what is necessary to be answered is whether the proposed defendant was a necessary and proper party or whether it was at best a witness for the petitioners in the suit. The answer to the question lies in the observation of the Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, which reads thus: A private 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. 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. 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.If regard is had to the aforestated facts, and applying the observation of the Apex Court supra, the trial court stumbled upon the correct decision to reject the application.

Petition, devoid of merits, is rejected.