Calcutta High Court: In a three separate revisional applications challenging the order of rejection of the applicant-petitioner’s application for addition of parties, a single-judge bench comprising of Biswaroop Chowdhury,* J., found that the trial court failed to consider the petitioner’s contentions and documents filed in support of their application. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration upon receipt of the special officer’s report.
Factual Matrix
The instant revisional applications arise from the rejection of the applicant-petitioner’s prayer for addition of parties in suit by the Civil Judge Senior Division, vide order dated 05-05-2022. The applicant challenged the impugned order contending that their inclusion as parties is crucial for proper adjudication.
The opposite party 1-plaintiff initiated the suit against the sole defendant-opposite party 2, seeking eviction for property sale. The allegations include the plaintiff attempting to sell the property and demanding eviction of all tenants. The applicant claimed occupancy but was not acknowledged by the plaintiff, who falsely asserted the sole defendant’s exclusive occupancy. The applicant argued that their inclusion is essential for a fair adjudication. The lower Court rejected the addition of parties, stating the plaintiff’s lack of objections, and the absence of allegations against the applicants.
Parties’ Contentions
The applicant challenged the rejection, asserting the trial court’s failure to consider their documents and the potential prejudice to their rights. It was contended that the applicant’s right to be added as a party is essential for proper adjudication.
The opposite party contended that no relief was sought against the appellant, therefore justifying their exclusion. It was contended that the appellant’s independent rights can be addressed post-decree.
Legal Precedents
Kanak Lata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, (2018) 2 SCC 352
-
Eviction suits typically involve only the landlord (plaintiff) and tenant (defendant).
-
The question of title to the suit premises is not crucial for deciding an eviction suit.
Bimal Kumar Goenka v. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 103
-
Refers to Section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, highlighting the statutory requirements for notifying sub-tenancies.
-
Emphasises that the trial court can reject an application for addition of parties if the petitioner fails to provide prima facie evidence of lawful possession.
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that the petitioner filed three separate revisional applications challenging the order. The Court consolidated these applications for analogous hearing. The Court observed that the petitioner contended that the rejection was improper as the plaintiff did not file written objections, and their rights would be prejudiced if not included as parties.
The Court examined the contentions, emphasising that the plaintiff is the dominus litis but not immune from including necessary or proper parties. The Court referred to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), stating that the court has the discretion to add parties to enable effective adjudication. The Court clarified that a suit does not fail for mis-joinder but for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The Court found that the trial court did not address the petitioner’s contentions properly and rejected the application without considering the documents filed. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s lack of objection does not negate the need for a proper adjudication. The Court asserted that plaintiff’s discretion doesn’t absolve the court from considering necessary parties.
The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the application for addition of parties. To expedite the matter, the Court appointed a special officer to conduct an inquiry into the nature of possession by the petitioners in the suit property. The special officer was instructed to submit a detailed report, supported by a sketch map, within a specified timeframe.
Legal Principles
-
The presence of parties directly and legally interested in the outcome is crucial.
-
Mis-joinder doesn’t lead to suit failure; non-joinder of necessary parties does.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the revisional application and directed the trial court to reconsider the addition of parties upon receipt of the special officer’s report. The matter shall not be taken up for argument until the completion of the inquiry and reconsideration of the application.
[Effect Publication v. Rita Bhattacharya, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 106, order dated 05-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. Deb Kumar Deashi, Mr. Vishal Mallick, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Mr. Trinath Gangopadhyay, Mr. Anindya Halder, Counsel for the Opposite Party 1
