CRP/3813/2000 of Vs on 19 December 2003

:O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C.praying to set aside the fair and decretal dated 25.10.2000 made in I.A.No.18535 of 1998 in O.S.No.6553 of 1998 by the Court of XII Assistant City CivilJudge, Madras.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petitionhaving come to be filed, it comes to be known that the petitioner herein hasfiled the suit in O.S.No.6553 of 1998 before the Court of XII Assistant CityCivil Judge, Madras for declaration. Pending the suit, the petitioner hasfiled a petition in I.A.No.18535 of 2000 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying to implead the petitioner as third defendant in the suit and, since, the saidpetition was dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner in the suit has comeforward to file the civil revision petition on certain grounds as broughtforthin the grounds of revision such as when this Court had directed that the lowercourt should consider the petitioner's application according to law anddispose of the same on merits and had remanded the matter back to the trialcourt by order dated 21.7.2000 made in CRP No.3087 of 1999, the trial courthas failed to consider the observations made in the order of this court andhad erroneously dismissed the application; that It is also averred that thepurpose and scope of the impleading application by the petitioner in O.S.No.6553 of 1998 was not properly considered by the lower court and that thetrial court erroneously held that the issue in O.S. No.6553/98 could bedecided even without impleading the petitioner herein as a party, when thepetitioner's case was that the respondent has been running the mill withoutnecessary sanctions from the concerned authorities and also that in W.P.No.14838 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, the same was disposed of on thebasis of an undertaking given by the Corporation of Chennai; that thepetitioner is a necessary party, which aspect has not been considered by thetrial court and this vitiates the proceedings; that the learned trial Judgehas also not taken into consideration the pendency of W. P. No.5576 of 1998on the file of this Court, where the respondents are party against whom a writof mandamus is sought for; that on the basis of the objections raised by thefirst respondent alone and when the other respondents have not raised anyobjection to the petitioner being impleaded as a necessary party, the lowercourt ought to have allowed the application for impleading in the light of theorder passed by this Court in CRP No.3087 of 1999 and the observations madethereunder; that this grossly vitiates the proceedings. Hence, the presentcivil revision petition.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petition has been filed by thepetitioner herein in its capacity as the third party to implead itself as thethird defendant to the suit, which has been filed by the first respondentherein, praying for declaration that the first respondent is entitled from theCorporation the licence to run the Flour Mill; that the main allegation isthat she has put up construction in the patta land and that she has got NoObjection Certificate from the various Authorities for running the Mill, butunder the instigation of the petitioner, the licence was sought to becancelled; that the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 2 in thesuit; that they have also filed Original petition against the Telephone andElectric Department; that the petitioner is the Madras City Flour Mills OwnersAssociation; that how it is a necessary party has been brought forth in theaverments; that it has to pay Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff.

4. On such arguments, on facts the learned counsel would cite two judgments respectively reported in AIR 1968 MADRAS 142 (G.M.V.KRISHNAMACHARI Vs. M.D. DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL) and (1996) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES379 (ALIJI MOMONJI & Co. Vs. LALJI MAVJI AND OTHERS). So far as the firstjudgment cited above is concerned, a learned Single Judge of this Court hasheld :

"... The language employed in Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code 1908, confers upon the Court a very wide jurisdiction and theCourt should not be disposed to a curtailment of the powers more that what isexpressly decided by judicial decisions binding on it.The Madras High Court has consistently adopted a widerinterpretation of the scope of Order 1, Rule 10 and in the state ofauthorities the contention that the expression "the questions involved in thesuit" in Order 1, Rule 10 (2) should receive narrow view, namely, that onlyquestions as between the parties to the litigation and not questions betweenany of the parties to the suit and a third party even though touching theproperty which is the subject-matter of the suit - cannot be accepted...."....The interest" that is necessary to make a person party is legalinterest including equitable interest, that is an interest, which the lawwould recognise and uphold".

In the second judgment, it is held by the Lordships of theHonourable Apex Court:

"Where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectualadjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party.Necessary party is one without whose presence no effective and completeadjudication of the dispute could be made and no relief granted. The landlordhas a direct a nd substantial interest in the demised building before thedemolition of which notice under Section 351 was issued. In the event of itsdemolition, his rights would materially be affected. His right, title andinterest in the property demised to the tenant or licensee would be injeopardy. It may be that the construction which is sought to be demolished bythe Municipal Corporation was made with or without the consent of the landlordor the lessor. But the demolition would undoubtedly materially affect theright, title and interest in the property of the landlord. Under thosecircumstances, the landlord necessarily is a proper party, though the reliefis sought for against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolition of the building. Inthis context the question whether the respondent-landlord had only commercialinterest in the property would not arise."

5. On the otherhand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents would vehemently oppose the application on groundthat the petitioner is not at all a necessary party to proceed with the suitand with some motivated tactics to do harm to the respondents in running ofher Flour Mills, the petitioner has come out to implead itself as a party tothe suit proceeding. On such grounds, would ultimately the respondents wouldseek to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition.

6. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel forboth, it could be assessed that the petitioner, a third party in the suitfiled by the first respondent against the second and third respondents seekingdeclaration, directing the second and third respondents to issue a necessaryNo Objection Certificate and the Certificates for running her Flour Mills hascome forward to file an Interlocutory Application seeking to implead thepetitioner as a party, on certain grounds such as that it is a registered Society in the Societies Registration Act; that it has been established tocreate harmonious relationship among its members and in the best interest ofthe members and the general public it is functioning; that the petitioner istrying to erect the Mill in the Government land, which is not belonging to heretc; that in the public interest the petitioner has got the same to put forthcertain points before the Court and thus stating that it is vitally interestedparty to the proceeding and thus seeking to implead it as the third defendantin the suit.

7. The lower Court having assessed the facts and circumstances was not able to see the petitioner's interest in the suit, sinceit has raised its voice only against the interest of the petitioner and hence,would dismiss the application to implead it as a party. But on the otherhand,the lower Court has failed to realise that the points raised on the part ofthe petitioner in order to show that it is an interested party though not inits self-interest, but in the interest of the general public, it is moreimportant than showing one's own interest and therefore, for a healthyatmosphere to prevail, particularly in the licensing of the industries, suchas the Flour Mill, since the petitioner has a say, it is always desirable toimplead the petitioner as a party and to give an opportunity for thepetitioner to be heard in full, so as to decide the matter in consideration ofall the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair regarding thelicensing of the first respondent for running a Flour Mill with a generalhonest thought and for the common good of all.

8. Moreover, the law is liberal and it permits the interested parties to be impleaded in the legal interest including equitableinterest that is an interest, which the law would recognise and uphold as ithas been held in the judgment first cited above and therefore, this Court isof the view that the lower Court has erred in rejecting the plea of thepetitioner, ultimately dismissing his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10of C.P.C. to implead it as a party/defendant No.3 to the suit filed inO.S.No. 6553 of 1998 on the file of the lower Court and hence, the followingorder:In result,

i.the above Civil Revision Petition is allowed;

ii.the fair and decretal order dated 25-10-2000 made in I.A.No. 18535 of 1998in O.S.No. 6553 of 1998 by the Court of XII Assistant City Civil Judge,Madras, is set aside;iii.there shall be no order as to costs.

Index: YesInternet: Yes

paa

ToThe XII Assistant City Civil Judge,Madras.