Rule 10 of the CPC of Order 1 covers two types of cases: (a) a party that should have been joined but has not been joined and is a necessary party, and (b) a party without whose presence the matter in question cannot be decided in its entirety. The purpose of Decision 1, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure is to bring to justice all persons who are simultaneously involved in the dispute concerning the subject matter, so that the disputes can all be settled simultaneously and without delay, the inconveniences and costs of separate actions and judicial proceedings. There is no legal requirement that an application for filing must be made at a particular stage of the trial, although a delay is a reason for the court to consider whether or not to designate a person as a necessary party. Sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of decision (1) provides that the court may add a person or entity as a necessary party at any stage of the proceedings. A second claim may also be dealt with in proceedings concerning an action in modified circumstances. The conversion of a party is subject to the provisions of Rule 10 of Ordinance 1 of the CPC, which is a general procedure. However, this general procedure would not apply if a procedure is prescribed in a special decree. Example: Land Acquisition Act, voting rights, etc. The dominus litus theory should not be overused in the question of the classification of the parties, since it was the duty of the court to ensure that if a person was a necessary party to the decision on the actual dispute, the court could order the indictment of that person. The mere fact that the applicant does not choose to dismiss a person is not sufficient to deny an application for indictment.
A person is a necessary party if, in the absence of the person claimed in the action, no remedy can be granted. A necessary party is against whom the appeal is lodged and without whom no effective injunction can be issued. ATTACHMENT(S):- Submit all documents as attachments in consecutive and chronological order. The Court relied on Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886, in which the Supreme Court held that, by virtue of judicial decisions, it is firmly established that, in order to be included as a party to an appeal, a person must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute, irrespective of the fact that: if it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property. The land entitled to bring an action had been sold to the defendant`s wife. In the light of the above, the intervener was a necessary party to the appeal and the application was therefore allowed. [Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. Ranjit Kumar Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 436, Decision 19-12-2018] Orissa High Court: A single bench of Dr. A.K. Rath, J., granted the motion challenging the trial court`s order to dismiss the plaintiffs` application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to release the defendant`s wife 1 1.
The provisions of Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the CPC are very broad and the powers of the court are equally extensive. Even in the absence of a request to participate as a party, the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order that the name of a party who should have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence in court may be necessary for the court to be able to rule and resolve effectively and fully all matters related to the action. arrive. It is therefore humbly requested that, in view of the above and those to be requested at the time of the hearing, the applicant may be charged as a necessary/appropriate party in the above-mentioned civil action in order to present his case for a just settlement of the case in the interests of justice. No decree or order may be issued if a person is not charged as a necessary party in the trial. Since a party against whom admission has been sought is not known for an effective decision, no effective decree or order can be issued in the action. If an existing decree or ordinance cannot be passed, the trial will never lead to its logical conclusion. Rule 10 of Ordinance 1 of the CODE does not deal with the replacement of the legal representatives of a deceased party. It gives the court (at each stage of the action) only the power to designate a single person as a necessary/appropriate party.
Different parts of this blog post have been literally plagiarized from another article (districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Impleadment%20of%20third%20parties%20by%20Sri%20Atheeque%20Ahamad.pdf). The original item also appears in Google search when we type “Order 1 Rule 10”. The principles governing the court`s jurisdiction under Ordinance 1, Rule 10 of the CPC are that, as a general rule, the court should not include a person as a defendant in an action if the plaintiff is against such an amendment. The reason for this is that the applicant is the “dominus litus”. He cannot be forced to fight against a person he does not want to fight against and against whom he does not claim relief. Provide a list of all events for which the lawsuit is filed in court in chronological order A person will be added as an appropriate party to definitively and effectively decide on the lawsuit and avoid future litigation. If a party is not considered a real party, it is possible that that person may contact the court again after the conclusion of the hearing, with the complaint that he was not seized as a party in the previous action. To avoid frivolous and multiple disputes, the court usually offers a wide window to treat all people who treat a lawsuit as an appropriate party.
If, for example, legal ownership for the specific performance of a sales contract had already been given by the owner of the property through a registered wakf deed for religious and charitable purposes, and the Muthavalli (Waqf trustee) was also appointed by that deed and the Wakf board of directors has already been taken into possession, it was determined that the Muthavalli and counsel are necessary parties to the lawsuit. NOTE: – What makes a person a necessary party is not only that he must provide relevant evidence for some of the issues in question; that would only make him a necessary witness. Rule 10 of CPC Order 1 applies only to prosecutions. The implementing provisions of Rule 10 of Ordinance 1 CPC do not apply to enforcement proceedings. Aggrieved parties, if any, must proceed in accordance with Order 21 (Enforcement of Decrees), in particular Rule 58 (Decision on Claims) and Rule 101 (Matters to be decided by a court pursuant to Decrees) of the CPP. The addition of parties should not only be done to avoid a large number of actions when their presence is not necessary for the determination of the question of fact. For example, a tenant in a real estate action may want to be charged as a necessary party as a defendant, even if the action takes place between two other persons asserting their respective property rights in the disputed property. I solemnly swear/affirm that this affidavit is true, that no part of it is false and that nothing has been hidden. Interim application to present the applicant as a necessary/appropriate party, accompanied by an affidavit.
. I, PQR; AGE…. YEARS S/O SH. ….. , R/O…….., solemnly confirm and declare that the attached provisional application has been read and explained to me and that the content of paragraphs nos. ____ to __ of the AEOI is true and correct to my personal knowledge and that the one in the other paragraphs ____ to ____ is based on legal advice. The said power may be exercised for one of two reasons: IN THE CASE: – PLAINTIFF(S) C/S DEFENDANT(S) IN THE CASE 😀 request for conversion of the following plaintiffs as a necessary/appropriate party in Civil Action No. ……….., entitled Plaintiff vs.
Defendant for Disposition before the Court of Scholars pursuant to Ordinance 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. “Dominus litus” is the person who owns a suit. It also means master of a costume. It is the party who has a real interest in deciding a case. It is that person who will be affected by the decision in a case. That person benefits if the judgment is in his favour or suffers from the consequences of an unfavourable decision. The doctrine of “Dominus litus” applies to someone who, although originally not a party, has made himself one by intervention or otherwise and has taken all control and responsibility of a party and is treated by the court as expensive and a person who is genuinely and directly interested in the trial as a party. .