advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, December 6, 2013

Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it's own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts - not correct = Or.1, rule 10 impleading a party with out asking for any relief against him is maintainable as the very purpose of impleading is only for having full and final settlement and to avoid multiple proceedings = N.ANANTHA REDDY Petitioner(s) VERSUS ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41043

    Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it's own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts - not correct - Review of it's judgement arose only in case of patent errors occurred in earlier judgement but not on fresh out look of the case  - High court confirmed the order of lower court when it allowed the impleading petition - Later at the instance of petitioner and on fresh documents took fresh approach and remanded case to  lower court to dispose the case basing on documents filed - Apex court set aside the orders of review of high court and confirmed the orders of lower court =    
A careful look at the impugned order would  show  that  the
      High Court had a fresh look at  the  question  whether  the  appellant
      could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1  and,  in
      the light of the view which it took, it  recalled  its  earlier  order
      dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the  High  Court  is  clearly
      flawed.  The  High  Court  exceeded   its   review   jurisdiction   by
      reconsidering the merits of the order  dated  08.06.2011.  The  review
      jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent
      on the face of the  record,  the  order/judgment  does  not  call  for
      review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is  self
      evident, needs no search  and  stares  at  its  face.  Surely,  review
      jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not  permit
      rehearing of the matter on merits.

Or.1, rule 10 impleading a party with out asking for any relief against him is maintainable as the very purpose of impleading is only for having full and final settlement and to avoid multiple proceedings -  a neighbor is necessary party in a suit filed against municipality for  non violation building plan  -suit  for  declaration and perpetual  injunction  against  the  Greater  Hyderabad  Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Assistant  City  Planner (respondent  No.  3  herein).  In  the  suit,  the  respondent  No.  1
(plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued  under  Section 452 of the  Greater  Hyderabad  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1955  be declared as illegal, void and not  legally  tenable.  It  was  further prayed that the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3  herein)  have  no right  to  interfere  with  the  construction  being  put  up  by  the plaintiff.   The  plaintiff  also  prayed  for  perpetual   injunction restraining the two defendants, their officers/officials/servants from interfering with the suit scheduled property and by directing them not to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule property. =

“No doubt, no relief is sought for against the proposed party in
           the suit.  The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead  a
           third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be
           resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid  multiplicity
           of proceedings. There must be some semblance  of  right  to  the
           proposed party. If the petitioner  violates  the  building  plan
           without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it  would
           cause inconvenience to the neighbours.  The  proposed  party  is
           one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest,  in
           view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though
           no relief is claimed against him,  he  would  be  necessary  and
           proper party to come on record.  That is  why  the  trial  Court
           rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and  there
           are no grounds to interfere  with  the  same.  The  revision  is
           devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”


 11 .       In our view, the High Court was not  at  all  justified  to
      review the order dated 08.06.2011.
      12.        The impugned order dated 13.12.2011  is,  accordingly,  set
      aside. Appeals are allowed as above.  No costs.                

              REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10779-10780 OF 2013
            (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 13098-13099/2012)


      N.ANANTHA REDDY                           Petitioner(s)


                                  VERSUS


      ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.                     Respondent(s)










                           J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T




      R.M. Lodha, J. :








                 Leave granted.
      2.         The respondent No. 1 herein filed a  suit  for  declaration
      and perpetual  injunction  against  the  Greater  Hyderabad  Municipal
      Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Assistant  City  Planner
      (respondent  No.  3  herein).  In  the  suit,  the  respondent  No.  1
      (plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued  under  Section
      452 of the  Greater  Hyderabad  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1955  be
      declared as illegal, void and not  legally  tenable.  It  was  further
      prayed that the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3  herein)  have  no
      right  to  interfere  with  the  construction  being  put  up  by  the
      plaintiff.   The  plaintiff  also  prayed  for  perpetual   injunction
      restraining the two defendants, their officers/officials/servants from
      interfering with the suit scheduled property and by directing them not
      to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule property.
      3.          The  appellant,  who  is   plaintiff's   neighbour,   made
      applications for his impleadment in the suit and the  application  for
      interim relief. The applicant  did  not  claim  any  right,  title  or
      interest in the suit schedule  property  but  claimed  that  there  is
      infringement of his right of light and air if the construction by  the
      plaintiff is commenced and completed and, therefore, he  is  a  proper
      party in the matter.
      4.         The trial court heard the plaintiff and the proposed  party
      and by order dated 20.07.2010 allowed the said applications. The trial
      court, while allowing  the  said  applications  made  by  the  present
      appellant, observed as follows :-






                 “The claim  of  petitioner  is  that,  though  he  is  not
           claiming right over the property of plaintiff, his grievance  is
           only about the construction being made by the plaintiff  because
           it is effecting his right for light and air.  The  objection  of
           the plaintiff is that  because  he  is  challenging  the  notice
           issued by the Municipality in respect of the construction, since
           the petitioner is not having any right over the  suit  property,
           he is not necessary party. I have considered  other  submissions
           also made and the citations relied by  the either  side.   Under
           Order 1 Rule 10 a party would become necessary party  or  proper
           party if he is  having  only  over  the  subject  matter  to  be
           adjudication under the suit and then can be impleaded.  In  this
           case though the third party petitioner is not claiming any title
           over the property. Even if the pleadings of the  plaintiff  have
           to be considered, the title  of  the  plaintiff  over  the  suit
           property is not in  dispute.   What  is  in  dispute  among  the
           plaintiff and the defendants already on  record   is  about  the
           construction  being  made  by  the   plaintiff.    Because   the
           defendants already on record have said to have issued notice  to
           the  plaintiff  stating  that  the  construction   is   illegal.
           Challenging the said notice the  present  suit  is  filed.   The
           present suit is filed after withdrawing the  previous  suit  for
           injunction filed against Municipality said to  be  filed  before
           issuance of the notice under Section 452 of Municipal  Act.   In
           that case the petitioner  had  already  been  impleaded  on  his
           application  as  he  was  expressing  the   grievance   of   the
           infringement of his right for light  and  air  in  view  of  the
           construction of the plaintiff.  Having considered the  decisions
           relied by either party to my considered  opinion,  the  decision
           relied by the third party petitioner is that similar facts as of
           the present case on hand wherein the Court held that though  the
           said third party is not a necessary  party,  but  he  is  proper
           party in respect of his grievance to the suit proceedings  there
           in and ordered his impleading in the  suit.  The  facts  in  the
           decisions relied by the Learned Counsel for  plaintiff  are  not
           similar to the  facts  on  hand.   Therefore  by  following  the
           decisions relied by Learned Counsel for third  party  petitioner
           in 2005 (6) ALD NOC 223 (Between : Neelam Ajit  Vs.   S.  Suresh
           Reddy and another), I hold that the third party  petitioner  can
           be impleaded in the suit and as  well  as  the  application  for
           injunction  as  Defendant   No.   3   and   Respondent   No.   3
           respectively.”




      5.         The above order of the trial court was  challenged  by  the
      respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) before the High Court.  The  High  Court,
      after hearing the parties, by its order dated 08.06.2011 dismissed the
      Civil Revision Petitions filed by  the  respondent  No.  1  herein  by
      observing as follows :


           “4. It is to be noted that the vendor of the plaintiff  and  the
           vendor of the first respondent  herein  are  neighbours,  having
           purchased  common  property  and  dividing  the  same  into  two
           portions and one portion comprising an extent of 790  sq.  yards
           was purchased by the first  respondent  and  the  other  portion
           comprising of 580 sq. yards was purchased by the vendor  of  the
           plaintiff.  It is further stated  that  both  the  parties  made
           constructions in their  respective  plots  and  allegations  and
           counter allegations  were  made  against  one  another  alleging
           deviations  from  the  sanctioned  plan  and  violation  of  the
           building rules.


           5.     It  is  not  disputed  that  previously  in  the  similar
           circumstances, this Court by common order  dated  25.10.2010  in
           CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of  2010,  dismissed  the  said  revision
           petitions and confirmed the orders passed by  the  trial  court,
           permitting the first respondent to come on record  as  defendant
           in the said suit OS No. 960 of 2010 and copy of the  said  order
           is placed on record. The issue raised in  the  present  revision
           petitions virtually covered by  the  said  earlier  order  dated
           25.10.2010 in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010  and  adopting  the
           reasons mentioned therein, the present  revision  petitions  are
           also dismissed.”






      6.         The respondent No. 1 then made applications for  review  of
      the order of the High Court dated 08.06.2011.


      7.         The High Court by the impugned order  recalled its  earlier
      order dated 08.06.2011 and directed the trial court  to  consider  the
      applications for impleadment afresh.
      8.         While recalling the order dated 08.06.2011, the High  Court
      observed thus :


           “11. During enquiry of the review applications, 
 the  petitioner
           filed  several  documents  including  the  sale  deeds  and  the
           sanctioned  plan  and  also  photographs  in  support   of   his
           contention that while making the construction he  has  left  the
           space towards set backs as required  under  the  rules  and  the
           construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan  and  the
           question of petitioner's construction causing obstruction to the
           free flow of light and air to the first respondent's six storied
           building does not arise.  
The  said  documents  were  not  filed
           before the trial Court and hence, there was no occasion for  the
           trial Court to refer to the same  in  the  impugned  order.  The
           trial court ordered impleadment of the first  respondent  herein
           mainly on the ground that in the earlier suit, which  was  filed
           by the plaintiff against the municipality for  mere  injunction,
           the first respondent was impleaded on his  application.  
 It  is
           stated that the earlier suit  was  withdrawn  and  subsequently,
           plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the notice
           issued under section 452 of the  Municipal  Corporation  Act  is
           illegal.  
Admittedly, no relief is sought in  the  present  suit
           against the first respondent. 
The question as to whether or  not
           the first respondent herein would  be  a  proper  and  necessary
           party having regard to the nature of the relief  prayed  for  in
           the present suit is a matter  to  be  considered  independently,
           irrespective of impleadment of the first  respondent  herein  in
           the earlier suit, which was filed only for injunction. 
The trial
           court has to consider the question as  to  whether  or  not  the
           first respondent is a proper and necessary party to the  present
           suit in the light of the documents now sought to be filed by the
           petitioner. 
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC contemplates the impleadment  of
           proper and necessary party, whose presence before the  Court  is
           necessary to enable the  Court  effectually  and  completely  to
           adjudicate upon and settle all the  questions  involved  in  the
           suit.  
The question as to whether or not the first respondent is
           a proper and necessary party, who can be impleaded in  terms  of
           Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has to be considered  keeping  in  view  the
           relief prayed for in the present suit and the  dispute  that  is
           required to be settled pertaining to the impugned notice  issued
           by the Municipal Corporation.  
The impugned order passed by  the
           trial court permitted impleadment of the first respondent on the
           premise that he was previously impleaded in another suit,  which
           was filed for injunction is therefore held unsustainable and the
           same is accordingly set aside.”




      9.         A careful look at the impugned order would  show  that  the
      High Court had a fresh look at  the  question  whether  the  appellant
      could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1  and,  in
      the light of the view which it took, it  recalled  its  earlier  order
      dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the  High  Court  is  clearly
      flawed.  The  High  Court  exceeded   its   review   jurisdiction   by
      reconsidering the merits of the order  dated  08.06.2011.  The  review
      jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent
      on the face of the  record,  the  order/judgment  does  not  call  for
      review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is  self
      evident, needs no search  and  stares  at  its  face.  Surely,  review
      jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not  permit
      rehearing of the matter on merits.
      10.        The order passed by the High  Court  on  08.06.2011,  on  a
      careful reading, shows that the High Court instead  of  repeating  the
      reasons which it had given in other revision petitions being CRP  Nos.
      2870 and 3882 of 2010, while it was fully conscious of the  fact  that
      those civil revisions arose from a different suit followed  its  order
      in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010.  The High Court was fully conscious
      of the factual and legal position while it was considering  the  civil
      revision petitions filed by the present respondent  No.  1.    In  the
      order  upon  which  reliance  was  placed  by  the  High  Court  while
      dismissing the civil revision petitions, the High Court had noted thus
      :-


           “No doubt, no relief is sought for against the proposed party in
           the suit.  The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead  a
           third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be
           resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid  multiplicity
           of proceedings. There must be some semblance  of  right  to  the
           proposed party. If the petitioner  violates  the  building  plan
           without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it  would
           cause inconvenience to the neighbours.  The  proposed  party  is
           one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest,  in
           view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though
           no relief is claimed against him,  he  would  be  necessary  and
           proper party to come on record.  That is  why  the  trial  Court
           rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and  there
           are no grounds to interfere  with  the  same.  The  revision  is
           devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”


 11 .       In our view, the High Court was not  at  all  justified  to
      review the order dated 08.06.2011.
      12.        The impugned order dated 13.12.2011  is,  accordingly,  set
      aside. Appeals are allowed as above.  No costs.


                                  ..........................J.
                                  ( R.M. LODHA )






      NEW DELHI;         ..........................J.
      DECEMBER  2, 2013  ( SHIVA KIRTI SINGH )




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.