Intervenor Arrayed as Proper Party to Avoid Multiplicity Despite Pending Partition Suit Between Same Parties

The Petitioners (Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 25 of 2008) filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession based on a gift deed executed by Ganauri Pandit

During the pendency of the suit, the original Plaintiff No. 2 (Rampati Pandit) died, and his legal representatives through his second wife were substituted

Opposite Party No. 1, the son of Rampati Pandit through his first wife, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded, which the Munsif, Koderma, allowed on 04.10.2023, arraying him as Defendant No. 4

Subsequently, the trial court framed additional issues on 15.03.2024 and permitted Defendant No. 4 to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses on 14.08.2024

The Petitioners challenged these three orders under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the impleadment of the son from the first marriage as a defendant is necessary for the effectual adjudication of the title suit

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the framing of additional issues and the permission granted to a defendant to cross-examine witnesses

Order I Rule 10 of the CPC regarding the joinder of parties and the distinction between "necessary" and "proper" parties as clarified in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417

Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, which empowers the trial court to amend or strike out issues at any stage

Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC regarding the court’s power to permit the recall or examination of witnesses to ensure a fair trial

The Court reasoned that since Defendant No. 4 is the undisputed grandson of the original donor, his presence is essential to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure his rights are not adversely affected by a decree passed in his absence; thus, he constitutes a "proper party"

Regarding the additional issues, the Court noted that the Petitioners failed to exercise their statutory remedy under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to request the trial court to strike out unnecessary issues before approaching the High Court at a belated stage after the plaintiffs' evidence was closed

Finally, the Court held that once a party is validly impleaded and has filed a written statement, denying him the right to cross-examine would be a violation of natural justice and would deprive him of a reasonable opportunity to contest the suit

The Court declined to interfere with the framing of issues, leaving it open for the trial court to exercise its powers under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC if necessary. The order permitting cross-examination was upheld as fair and proper. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of without interference in the trial court's proceedings