Impleading of Parties

Complainant was aggrieved of authorities not handing over possession of his illegally dispossessed property despite there being order from the High Court

Accused persons during pendency of proceedings, filed application seeking adding of parties to proceedings which was allowed by Trial Court

Validity

No provision was available in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 enabling a criminal court to exercise its jurisdiction for impleading any person even at his own as a party during proceedings while trying an offence

Trial Court while passing order failed to consider that criminal court was not conferred upon jurisdiction under any law, either to strike or add any party in pending criminal proceedings

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court as same was passed illegally, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and as such same was of no legal effect

High Court declined to interfere in orders for handing over possession of land in question to complainant as it was unchallenged and attained finality

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Plaintiff in a suit is dominus litis who may choose persons against whom he wishes to litigate and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief

Necessary party is a person who must be joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by court

If a necessary party is not impleaded the suit itself is liable to be dismissed

Proper party is a party who though not a necessary party but is a person whose presence enables court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in suit, though he is not a person in favour of or against whom decree is to be made.

During the trial, parties reached a compromise and in terms of compromise, after deletion of Province of Punjab and Commissioner from array of defendants, suit was decreed

During execution proceedings, defendant resiled from said compromise, whereupon, on an application under S.12(2) C.P.C., suit was restored for its decision afresh

Plaintiffs after that moved an application under O.I, R.10 C.P.C. before the Trial Court with the prayer to implead Province of Punjab and the Commissioner as defendants in the suit

Trial Court allowed said application and revision filed by defendant against order of the Trial Court having been dismissed by Appellate Court, defendant had filed constitutional petition against said order contending that after deletion of Province of Punjab and the Commissioner from the array of defendants in terms of statement of counsel for plaintiffs, they could not ask for their subsequent impleadment as they were estopped by their words

Earlier, plaintiff had made statement for deletion of Province of Punjab and the Commissioner from the array of defendants only in furtherance of the compromise entered between the parties, which compromise was no more there and said order had already been set aside

After restoration of the suit for its decision afresh on merits, principle of estoppel would not apply

Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly allowed application of plaintiffs, permitting addition of Province of Punjab and the Commissioner as party, which order was rightly affirmed by the Appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Petitioner who claimed to be President of employees union in establishment having originally been elected for a year, sought amendment in constitution of employees union for extending term of office-bearers from one year to two years, which amendment was not approved by Registrar, Trade Union

Petitioner having filed appeal against order of Registrar, Trade Union, respondents who claimed to have been elected respectively as President and General Secretary of Employees Union for the next term applied to be impleaded in proceedings, which application was accepted by Labour Court

Petitioner had challenged order of Labour Court by filing revision

Both petitioner and respondents had earlier been tagged in litigation before National Industrial Relations Commission as also before High Court

Petitioner thus could not urge that respondents who had been made party in proceedings were not necessary, not even proper parties to the proceedings before Labour Court

Respondents being necessary parties, were rightly ordered to be impleaded in appeal before Labour Court.

Appellate Court allowing application for being impleaded as party through amendment of plain on ground that a fresh properly instituted suit was not barred and that normal rule of deciding matter effectively and completely by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings has to be followed

Appeal was yet to bf decided and was pending for purpose when defendant filed a revision in High Court under 5.115, C.P.C. against order of appellate Court impleading party in suit which was dismissed

Leave to appeal

Contention that although it was within discretionary power of appellate Court to allow such impleading, nevertheless a right having accrued to defendants it could not have been taken away by filling in lacuna left by respondent in plaint and discretion was not properly exercised by appellate Court-Held, a decision on a vital question even when made in discretionary field and/or on a procedural matter might produce effect regarding rights and liabilities and that by itsel

Legal representatives were brought on record in appeal while appeal was pending before letters Paten. Bench of High Court

Legal representatives of such deceased parties, filing application for substitution after grant of leave to appeal on notice

No ground for such mistake committed by appellant made out

Appeal as filed, held, was incompetent and did not conform to requirements of O. XIII, Supreme Court Rules, 1980

No reason at all available for such a mistake having been committed and record of case having remained without correction so long

While allowing petition filed by legal representatives of some of respondents, Supreme Court recalled order of granting leave to appeal and dismissed petition for leave to appeal as incompetent in circumstances.

S. 20-Revision-Impleading of parties-Contention that associates of petitioner (purchasing parties) having not been made parties to proceedings, P. T. O. could not be amended or cancelled-Held, Associates in circumstances ought to have come forward and raise objection

Proceedings against petitioner not vitiated for such reason particularly when all proceedings conducted by petitioner acting as attorney on behalf of all purchasers.