(BY SHRI SUMANT MISHRA - ADVOCATE) v. Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RATAN PRAKASH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.2 MAHAVEER COLONY, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SUMANT MISHRA - ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the .....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM following: 2 ORDER The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.06.2022 passed by VI Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.81-A of 2022; whereby, an application under Order 1(2) Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the petitioners/defendants was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration, possession and temporary injunction with regard to House No.2, Mahaveer Colony, Tapu Mohalla, Lashkar, Gwalior. In the suit, it has been averred that the mutation of the name of present respondent/plaintiff in the Municipal Records over the said house was made on the basis of Will dated 11.09.2007 executed by father of present respondent and petitioner No.1 i.e. Late Shri Ratan Prakash Gupta in his favou.

3. It is an undisputed fact that Shri Ratan Prakash Gupta had expired on

24.07.2019 and mother of petitioner No.1 and respondent had expired on

11.01.2020. The house in question was got mutated in the Municipal Records by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of aforesaid Will and thereafter, the house in question has been mortgaged to State Bank of India and loan thereupon has been taken by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Upon receiving summons of suit, the present petitioners/defendants had moved an application under Order 1(2) Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the State Bank of India, from whom the present respondent/plaintiff had taken a loan, as a party defendant as the outcome of the suit would materially affect the rights of the present petitioners/defendants as well as the State Bank of India. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM 3

5. Reply was filed in the matter on behalf of respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2022 had rejected the said application holding that the State Bank of India is not a necessary party as no relief has been claimed by the respondent/plaintiff against the State Bank of India. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that on the basis of an alleged forged Will dated 11.09.2007, the present respondent/plaintiff has got his name mutated in the Municipal Records and thereafter had taken a loan on the said house from the State Bank of India and as the present suit is for declaration of the title of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of a Will, rights of the State Bank of India would be materially affected in the event of dismissal of the present suit and therefore, the proposed party defendant State Bank of India was a necessary party for adjudication of the matter.

7. To bolster his submissions, he has placed reliance in the matter of Raiza Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum reported in AIR 1958 (SC) 886 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and here the subject matter of the litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of presence of direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the Court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy, but the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the light of legal position. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM 4

8. He has further placed reliance in the matter of R. Dhanasundari v. A.N. Umakanth & Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is essentially to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter of the suit so that the dispute may be determined in their presence and the multiplicity of proceeding be avoided; thus, the learned Trial Court has clearly erred in law in rejecting the application.

9. On the basis of above submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order herein deserves to be set aside.

10. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the law with regard to impleading the party to a suit is very well settled. Any person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit could be added as a party at any stage of the proceedings and avoidance of the multiplicity of the proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provisions.

11. It was further submitted that in a suit, the respondent/plaintiff is the dominus litis and he has every right to implead such person as party defendant against whom he wants to litigate the matter and in the presence of whom, the Court can pass an effective decree and the present respondent/plaintiff had not prayed any relief of any kind against the State Bank of India.

12. It was further submitted that the application has not even been filed by the State Bank of India to implead as a party defendant rather it has been moved by the petitioners/defendants against whom, the suit for declaration on the basis a Will has been filed by the present respondent/plaintiff. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM 5

13. To bolster his submissions, he has placed reliance in the matter of Katuri vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. reported in 2005 (3) MPLJ 261, whereby the Honb'le Apex Court has laid down that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC empowers the Court to add a person, who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit and in that regard, the said application should have passed twin tests which are:- (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.

14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. The object of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is to enable the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if a person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of the multiplicity of the proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provisions. In a civil suit so long as question of grant of relief sought for can be decided in the presence of the parties appearing before the Court, the Court will not consider any one other than such a litigant as a necessary party; thus, the legal position which emerges from the above discussion is that addition of a party may be allowed when it is found by the Court that party sought to be added as a necessary party or a proper party in whose absence the suit cannot be decided or no effective decree can be passed.

16. In the present case, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants is for impleading State Bank of India as party. Since the plaintiff/respondent had on the basis of its mutation in the Municipal Records on the basis of forged Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM 6 Will has taken a loan and has kept the property in dispute mortgaged with State Bank of India, it is a necessary party appears to be totally misconceived. The suit basically is for declaration of title on the ground of a Will which has been disputed by the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff had not sought any relief against the State Bank of India, what would be the fate of suit cannot be taken into consideration at this juncture. So far as the Will which is in dispute is of no concerned to the Bank and for grant of relief which has been claimed by the respondent/plaintiff, according to this Court, can be passed even in the absence of the bank; thus, the presence of the Bank is not necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. As the bank is neither necessary party nor proper party, the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 1(2) Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC preferred by the petitioners/defendants.

17. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. pwn* (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2023 11:05:51 AM