Judgment:
ORDER
N. Animugham, .J.
1. Arguments were heard with the consent of the Bar for respective parties, as the question involved in these revisions is a simple one situate in a very narrow compass.
2. The revision petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 222 of 1994, now pending on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, which is pending disposal for the relief of declaration of the right and title of the respondent herein as a tenant in the suit property and the consequential relief of injunction against him not to demolish the superstructures standing thereon.
3. The matrix of the case seems to have been that the plaint for the abovesaid relief was filed originally against one P. Hussain, the first defendant and that during the pendency of the same on the basis of an encumbrance certificate obtained by the plaintiff and on coming to know that the revision petitioner along with two others, by name, Jameela Begum, Sadhiha Begum were very much involved in the title and interest of the suit property and that therefore their presence was felt necessary for having a complete adjudication of the matter in hand. Therefore, I.A. Nos. 1948 and 1951 of 1994 was filed by the respondent herein under Order 1, Rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead the revision petitioner herein and two others as above referred. A casual look of the impugned order passed by the learned VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras dated 9.2.1994 clearly manifest the grievance projected on behalf of the revision petitioner herein. For the purpose of appreciating the case in its proper perspective, I have extracted the same as hereunder:
Petition filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff to implead the proposed parties/ respondents herein as defendants 2,3 and 4 in the above suit and also in I.A. Nos. 425 and 434 of 1994 in O.S. No. 222 of 1994.
Heard. Petition allowed.
4. Consequent to the passing of the above order, it appears the revision petitioner along with two more persons were added as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and as per the order passed in I.A. No. 1951 of 1994 on the file of the trial court the plaint was amended accordingly. However, in the meantime the present revision has been filed and stay was obtained against all further proceedings therein, pending disposal of the revision. Consequently, the plaintiff/ respondent has come forward with petitions to vacate the stay also. Under the said circumstances, the Bar for respective parties have requested and expressed their consent to dispose the very revision petitions themselves.
5. The backdrop for the present litigation initiated before the trial court is that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of declaration that he is the tenant in the suit property and the superstructure belongs to him absolutely and for the consequential relief of injunction against the first defendant by name P. Hussain. It appears that there was a previous proceeding in which the first defendant P. Hussain had filed a petition before the Rent Controller and an order of eviction was obtained against one Babu, calling to be the tenant of the suit property and that order was executed by him. However, the claim of the present respondent is that he was residing in the suit property as a tenant under the original owner for the past more than forty years and subsequently by virtue of the order passed by the Rent Controller he has been depositing the rent and that there were no material to show that he is actually in occupation and possession of the suit property. Such being the case, he was forcibly evicted by the Court Bailiff pursuant to the decree passed by the court and about which he was totally unaware of and not made as a party therein, which necessitated him to file the present suit. It is also noticed that in the said suit he also prayed injunction by filing application, which is pending, as no interim order was granted.
6. At this juncture, the only grievance projected by Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner is the purchaser of the suit property from the original owner and whereby she was become the absolute owner of the same by purchase from the other proposed parties. Thus, it was admitted that the proposed parties are having subsisting tangible interest in the suit property. But however, the grievance of the respondent as plaintiff stands on the footing that without being made as a party to any of the proceedings on the pretext of some order passed by the court, he was forcibly evicted under the name of legal process. On coming to know of the actual persons who are having interest to the suit property by obtaining one encumbrance certificate he has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure. But in doing so, the learned Counsel has pointed out a remarkable departure in the following the settled principles of procedural law as given under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the learned Counsel has confined his attack that even assuming that the revision petitioner along with two others are deemed to be the proper and necessary parties and must have been added as parties in the suit, then a notice could have been sent to them and without doing so ordering them to be added as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit by the trial court is without any jurisdiction and that at any rate the learned Counsel would dwell his attack that the impugned order under this revision is a nullity for the reason that it is a non-speaking one.
7. Mr. A.R. Sakthivel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that the filing of the very revision itself is a device to drag on the proceedings for some more time as the respondent-plaintiff has already been dispossessed from the suit property and as his belongings were destroyed by the persons known to the revision petitioner and others under the pretext of the legal process and that therefore on the factum of identifying the tangible interest of the revision petitioner in the suit property, learned Counsel would contend that impleading the revision petitioner along with two others as defendants- parties to the suit cannot be assailed and that therefore the revision is not at all maintainable.
8. At this juncture, it has become necessary for me to advert to Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as hereunder:
The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
A bare reading of above Rule would clearly demonstrate the duty vested with the court that in the case of a party to the litigation already initiated, if the party to be struck out or a new party to be added whose presence is necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicating the matter in hand and to settle all the questions involved judicially and if for the said reasons alone, the party is to be deleted, then the court is empowered to strike out the party already arrayed in the litigation or to add any new persons either as plaintiff or defendant in any proceedings. It would go to show thus clearly that either to add or delete a person to a litigation, court must apply its mind and as clearly spelt out when their presence is necessary to have a complete adjudication of the matter in hand. It would otherwise mean that the court of law cannot adopt a mechanical process but apply its mind and completely satisfy itself that the presence of the new party as additional party or deletion of the existing party is a must for the purpose of rendering justice and when such incumbent duty has been mechanically exercised, then the order passed so mechanically by the court would be rendered as a nullity and cannot be deemed as a judicial order. It is also the settled judicial pronouncement that before a new party is added as a party to a litigation such party ought to be heard before being added as parties to the pending litigation on the principles of natural justice. If all these aspects are ignored by the court of law then I am respectfully of the view that the order cannot stand in the name of a judicial order. Keeping in view the above in mind and applying it to the facts of the instant case, as I have already extracted, I am at every difficulty to identify the ingredients or to justify the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has not given any reasoning nor applied his mind for impleading them as parties and deliberately omitted to follow the procedure laid down under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not known under what basis and for which purpose the presence of defendants 2 and .3 are ordered to be added is totally absent in the impugned order. Therefore, in this context, haying looked into the gamut of the case, I am fully satisfied to endorse my view with the attack made by the Bar on behalf of the revision petitioner.
9. With the result, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and set aside. In this regard, under the circumstances and for the major and material deviation committed by the learned trial Judge, I feel totally unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein. Parties to the litigation may have thousands of grievances, but when once the litigation has come before a court of law and it is for the parties to place everything before the court while expecting the total and full adjudication of the matter in hand and while doing so, the courts should follow the procedural mandate in order to render justice and not to deviate or overlook. Therefore, I am totally unable to accept the contention projected on behalf of the respondent.
10. However, for the reason of a major error of law committed by the learned trial Judge, the parties to, the litigation need not be put on any sufferings. Perhaps factually one may succeed, the other may fall to achieve its end. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, I have made up by mind to see that the ends of justice could not be met by remanding the whole matter again to the learned trial Judge to decide the question whether impleading the revision petitioner along with two more persons is necessary or not with reasons, after giving full opportunity to both sides to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. While doing so, both parties to the revision must be given full opportunity to vindicate their respective cases.
11. Accordingly, in the result, the impugned order passed by the learned VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, passed in I.A. Nos. 1948 and 1951 of 1994 on 9.2.1994 is hereby set aside and the revision stands allowed. But however, in view of the direction given by me above, the whole matter has been rendered back to the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, again to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the directions given above and to dispose of the petitions within three weeks from today. The civil revision petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.