Raghvendra Dutt Ram Pandey v. Geeta Pandey) whereby upon an application under Order

Revisionist :- Raghvendra Datt Ram Pandey Opposite Party :- Smt. Geeta Pandey And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Shivam Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Lav Singh,Atma Ram Verma,Lav Singh,Laxman Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Atma Ram Verma learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC being aggrieved against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gonda in Suit no.760 of 2019 (Raghvendra Dutt Ram Pandey vs Geeta Pandey) whereby upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the private respondent nos.3 to 5, the same came to be allowed. The record further indicates that the instant revision is barred by limitation by 41 days. The record further indicates that notices were issued to the respondent and despite service being affected, it is respondent nos.3 to 5 who had put in appearance and filed their objections. None has filed objections in so far as the respondent no.1-Geeta is concerned though she is represented by Sri Luv Singh learned counsel. Considering the ground shown in the application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit this Court finds that ground shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned. The revision shall be treated to have been filed within time and thereafter the Court has heard learned counsel for the revisionist on admission. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for impleadment at the behest of the private respondent nos.3 to 5 specially when they themselves had instituted a suit wherein the petitioner was made as a party and in the given circumstances, there were certain other facts including filing of earlier suits which was not disclosed and to that extent the application for impleadment itself suffers from concealment of fact. It has also been pointed out that during pendency of the instant revision, the private respondent nos.3 to 5 have moved an application before the trial court seeking withdrawal of their suit bearing no.2219 of 2021 which has been allowed by the Court concerned on 10.03.2025 and in view thereof, the changed circumstances, the revision deserves to be allowed as the private respondents who have withdrawn their suit as they are not interested to contest they could not be permitted to saddle the plaintiff in the instant suit filed by him and for the said reasons the order passed by the Civil Judge dated 16.07.2024 suffers from jurisdictional error. Having considered the aforesaid submissions this Court finds that the same has no merit for more than one reasons. (i) At the outset, it may be noticed that the powers under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are quite sweeping. The Court only at that stage has to look into the fact as to whether the party seeking impleadment is proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not disputed by the revisionists that the petitioner as well as private respondent no.3 to 5 both were contesting their separate cases. The petitioner was a party in the suit filed by the private respondent no.3. It is only when the private respondents moved an application for their impleadment in the suit filed by the revisionist, that he came to know of the said suit and he then contested the suit of private respondent nos.3 to 5. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the petitioner was contesting the said suit and vice versa the private respondent has sought their impleadment in the suit of the revisionist. This in itself cannot be treated to be an jurisdictional error and to state that the order dated 16.07.2024 suffers from any error, as it was in fitness of things that both the suits should have been contested by the parties after giving each of them an opportunity of hearing. In so far as the fact that during pendency of the revision the private respondent nos.3 to 5 have withdrawn their suit even that will have no impact on the revision in as much as at the time of withdrawal it is for the plaintiff of the said suit to consider whether he wished to contest or not to contest. Even if he had withdrawn the suit and yet the private respondents continue to remain as a party in the suit filed by the plaintiff/revisionist even then he shall have ample opportunity to bring all the material on record and contest the same on its merit. Whether the private respondents are interested in contesting the suit of the plaintiff or not is also a different issue in as much as if they do try to linger the proceedings then the Court have ample power to proceed and pass appropriate order including exparte against such disinterested proceeding party. This in any case is not going to create any embargo on the power of the Court to implead party provided the said party is proper and necessary. For the said reason, this Court does not find that there is any merit, accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission itself. It also may be stated that any observation made by this Court is only tentatively for the purposes of adjudging the order passed in Civil Suit and it is not going to impact the rights of the parties which in any case would be subject to the evidence led during the trial. Needless to say that the suit has been expedited by order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Civil Revision no.28 of 2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, the trial court shall make an endeavour to abide by the said order. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Harshita HARSHITA HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Revisionist :- Raghvendra Datt Ram Pandey Opposite Party :- Smt. Geeta Pandey And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Shivam Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Lav Singh,Atma Ram Verma,Lav Singh,Laxman Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Atma Ram Verma learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC being aggrieved against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gonda in Suit no.760 of 2019 (Raghvendra Dutt Ram Pandey vs Geeta Pandey) whereby upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the private respondent nos.3 to 5, the same came to be allowed. The record further indicates that the instant revision is barred by limitation by 41 days. The record further indicates that notices were issued to the respondent and despite service being affected, it is respondent nos.3 to 5 who had put in appearance and filed their objections. None has filed objections in so far as the respondent no.1-Geeta is concerned though she is represented by Sri Luv Singh learned counsel. Considering the ground shown in the application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit this Court finds that ground shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned. The revision shall be treated to have been filed within time and thereafter the Court has heard learned counsel for the revisionist on admission. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for impleadment at the behest of the private respondent nos.3 to 5 specially when they themselves had instituted a suit wherein the petitioner was made as a party and in the given circumstances, there were certain other facts including filing of earlier suits which was not disclosed and to that extent the application for impleadment itself suffers from concealment of fact. It has also been pointed out that during pendency of the instant revision, the private respondent nos.3 to 5 have moved an application before the trial court seeking withdrawal of their suit bearing no.2219 of 2021 which has been allowed by the Court concerned on 10.03.2025 and in view thereof, the changed circumstances, the revision deserves to be allowed as the private respondents who have withdrawn their suit as they are not interested to contest they could not be permitted to saddle the plaintiff in the instant suit filed by him and for the said reasons the order passed by the Civil Judge dated 16.07.2024 suffers from jurisdictional error. Having considered the aforesaid submissions this Court finds that the same has no merit for more than one reasons. (i) At the outset, it may be noticed that the powers under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are quite sweeping. The Court only at that stage has to look into the fact as to whether the party seeking impleadment is proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not disputed by the revisionists that the petitioner as well as private respondent no.3 to 5 both were contesting their separate cases. The petitioner was a party in the suit filed by the private respondent no.3. It is only when the private respondents moved an application for their impleadment in the suit filed by the revisionist, that he came to know of the said suit and he then contested the suit of private respondent nos.3 to 5. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the petitioner was contesting the said suit and vice versa the private respondent has sought their impleadment in the suit of the revisionist. This in itself cannot be treated to be an jurisdictional error and to state that the order dated 16.07.2024 suffers from any error, as it was in fitness of things that both the suits should have been contested by the parties after giving each of them an opportunity of hearing. In so far as the fact that during pendency of the revision the private respondent nos.3 to 5 have withdrawn their suit even that will have no impact on the revision in as much as at the time of withdrawal it is for the plaintiff of the said suit to consider whether he wished to contest or not to contest. Even if he had withdrawn the suit and yet the private respondents continue to remain as a party in the suit filed by the plaintiff/revisionist even then he shall have ample opportunity to bring all the material on record and contest the same on its merit. Whether the private respondents are interested in contesting the suit of the plaintiff or not is also a different issue in as much as if they do try to linger the proceedings then the Court have ample power to proceed and pass appropriate order including exparte against such disinterested proceeding party. This in any case is not going to create any embargo on the power of the Court to implead party provided the said party is proper and necessary. For the said reason, this Court does not find that there is any merit, accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission itself. It also may be stated that any observation made by this Court is only tentatively for the purposes of adjudging the order passed in Civil Suit and it is not going to impact the rights of the parties which in any case would be subject to the evidence led during the trial. Needless to say that the suit has been expedited by order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Civil Revision no.28 of 2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, the trial court shall make an endeavour to abide by the said order. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Harshita HARSHITA HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench