PRAKASH NARAYANDAS RIZWANI v. NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
Impleadment of Third Party under Order I Rule 10 CPC Denied in Injunction Suit where No Relief is Claimed and Party's Presence is only for Evidentiary Purposes.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:12158
Decision Date: 23-03-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India, Article 227; Civil Law - Joinder of Parties (Order I Rule 10); Law of Injunctions
- Facts: The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, alleging that the Corporation's employees were obstructing his peaceful possession of a property he had purchased. The Corporation contested the suit, denying the petitioner's title and claiming the petitioner was an encroacher on Corporation land. To prove his flow of title and establish that the land originally belonged to the Aurangabad Housing and Area Development Board (AHAD Board) rather than the Corporation, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the AHAD Board as a defendant. The petitioner admitted he sought no specific relief against the AHAD Board but wanted them as a party to facilitate the production of title records.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether a third party (AHAD Board) against whom no relief is claimed and no grievance is voiced is a necessary or proper party to a suit for perpetual injunction merely to facilitate the production of evidence regarding the flow of title.
- Holding: No, the AHAD Board is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's order.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a decree for perpetual injunction is a right in personam, not in rem; therefore, a defendant must be a party against whom relief is claimed or whose actions are challenged. Under Order I Rule 3 and Rule 10(2) of the CPC, a party is "necessary" only if their presence is indispensable to settle the controversy, and "proper" if their presence is required for an effectual adjudication. In this case, since the petitioner sought no relief against the AHAD Board and their presence was sought only to "bring the truth on record" regarding title, they did not qualify as a necessary or proper party. The Court further noted that the petitioner could achieve his objective by summoning AHAD Board officials as witnesses rather than impleading them as defendants.
🔒 For Members Only