The Managing Committee of Kalgidhar Khalsa Girls Higher Secondary School, Kamran Road, Ludhiana and Another vs Kishan Singh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the interim order passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Ludhiana, in a pending suit, as per which the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application filed by Kishan Singh Respondent and permitted him to be added as a Plaintiff in the suit filed by the Petitioners.

The facts are not in dispute. The Petitioner-Managing Committee had filed a suit against Jagtar Singh and Ors. for a declaration regarding the validity of the said Committee and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in the peaceful management of the school affairs. At an earlier stage of the suit, the Petitioners had themselves made a prayer for impleading Kishan Singh as a Defendant in the suit. However, the said Kishan Singh filed an application for being impleaded as a Plaintiff along with the Petitioners. The trial Court noticed the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, which lay down the contingencies under which a person may be impleaded as a party to the suit. However, without applying its mind to the aforesaid provisions, the trial Court proceeded to take notice of Order I, Rule 1 of the Code which merely prescribes the competence of persons to be joined as Plaintiffs in the same suit. It has been rightly submitted by Mr. C.D. Dewan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the provisions of Order I, Rule 1, of the Code would be attracted only in case there was a prayer for consolidation of two suits filed by different Plaintiffs in which common questions of law and fact would arise and not to a case where a person prays for being impleaded as a co-plaintiff against the wishes of the existing Plaintiffs in the suit. There is indeed substance in this submission of the Learned Counsel. The provisions of Order I, Rule 10 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, may be reproduced for ready reference as under:

10 Suit in name of wrong Plaintiff.-(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as Plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right Plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as Plaintiff upon such terras as the Court thinks just.

A bare reading of the above provision would show that neither of the contingencies mentioned therein exists in the present case so as to empower the Court to direct the impleading of Kishan Singh as a Plaintiff in the suit. The original suit is neither alleged to be instituted in the name of a wrong person nor is there any doubt in this respect. Furthermore, there is no finding by the trial Court that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake or that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute that Kishan Singh should be impleaded as a Plaintiff On the other hand, the trial Court has merely observed that the interest of Kishan Singh is akin to that of the Petitioners and that if he files a separate suit, common questions of law and fact would arise. This alone cannot be a ground to order Kishan Singh being impleaded as a Plaintiff. Apart from the above circumstances, it is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the parties that Kishan Singh aforesaid has already filed a separate suit in respect of his claim, though the proceedings in the said suit were ordered to be stayed by the trial Court.

In the circumstances noticed above, the impugned order of the trial Court is not sustainable. The revision petition is accepted and the said order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the present suit as also with the suit filed by Kishan Singh separately and if the convenience so requires, simultaneously.

The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed i.e., January 30, 1984.

There shall be no order as to costs of this Revision Petition.