SHIVNARAYAN BY LRS. VERSUS MANIKLAL BY LRS. & ORS, SUPREME COURT
Delivered by: Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph
Subject: Section 17 CPC
Held:
Suit in respect of different properties can be filed in any of the courts having jurisdiction if cause of action is the same. The Supreme Court has held that the word 'property' in Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can include more than one property. Therefore, the application of Section 17 CPC is not restricted to situations where portions of a single property fall within different jurisdictions; rather, it will apply to even those cases where the suit is concerning different properties situated in different jurisdictions.
However, there is a rider that the suit in respect of the properties must be arising out of same cause of action. The word "portion of the property" occurring in Section 17 has to be understood in context of more than one property also, meaning thereby one property out of a lot of several properties can be treated as portion of the property as occurring in Section 17.
Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Vikram Singh Mann & Ors., CM (M) 37/2019
Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Subject: Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Principles while deciding to delete the parties.
Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to delete or add parties to the suit. The principles held regarding this are as follows:
The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
1. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court.
2. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.
3. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief.
These principles were earlier held in the following two cases:
Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384; Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 417
