Skip to content


Tuisi Devi and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 615 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Delhi353; 27(1985)DLT408; 1985(8)DRJ210
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantTuisi Devi and anr.
RespondentMunicipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Advocates: Arun Kumar,; S.K. Kaul,; O.P. Hans,;
Cases ReferredSatish Chand Gupta v. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and
Excerpt:
code of civil procedure - section 115--in a suit for a permanent injunction restraining (he m.c.d. from demolishing any part of the two tin sheds, respondent no. 2 who was a tenant in flat no. 1 of the property was imp leaded as a party his application under order 1, rule 10. the petitioners appealed.; that respondent no. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. - - but the court can act only when some circumstances are brought to its notice by some party to show that it is necessary to implead some other party also'.i respectfully agree with the observations that the court can implead a third parly if it is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved......settle the questions involved. (8) learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further refers to satish chand gupta v. sarvesh chand gupta and others, 1984 (26) dlt 186 where it has been observed as follows : 'after considering these cases, it appears to me that it will depend upon the facts of each case whether a person is a proper party or a necessary party so that he may be allowed to be added as a party'.(9) i am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case respondent no. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and thereforee the trial court ought not to have directed him to be imp leaded as a defendant. the trial court has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in considering the scope of a suit for injunction restraining the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

I Rule 10 can be invoked not only by the parties to the suit but by the court suo moto. But the court can act only when some circumstances are brought to its notice by some party to show that it is necessary to implead some other party also'.

I respectfully agree with the observations that the court can implead a third parly if it is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved.

(8) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further refers to Satish Chand Gupta v. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and others, 1984 (26) Dlt 186 where it has been observed as follows :

'AFTER considering these cases, it appears to me that it will depend upon the facts of each case whether a person is a proper party or a necessary party so that he may be allowed to be added as a party'.

(9) I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and thereforee the trial court ought not to have directed him to be imp leaded as a defendant. The trial court has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in considering the scope of a suit for injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structures when such suits are prohibited under Section 343(4) of the Act.

(10) The revision petition is accepted setting aside the impugned order impleading respondent No. 2 as a defendant. Respondent No. 2 shall also pay costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300.00 .


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //