Addition of Party
Addition of party as plaintiff
Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: On going to materials on record it transpires that the suit is pending for preemptory hearing. The opposite party No.1 prayed to be impleaded as plaintiff because interest to other plaintiffs was devolved in favour of him. The trial Court rejected the same holding that his interest will be protected by other plaintiffs and mean while plaintiff No.6 was already examined as P.W. 1. So the trial Court rightly rejected the application but the Court of revision below allowed the rejection. I am of the view that the judgment and order suffers from legal infirmities. (Para-8 & 9, Mr. Justice Syed Md. Ziaul Karim). 18 BLT 86: Sekandar Ali & others Vs. Emran Chowdhury & others
Disputed question of facts are involved in the proceedings
15 BLC 495: Sanjib Kumar Ghosh & another Vs. Tarak Nath Ghosh & others: Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: In view of the statements made by the learned Advocate of both sides it transpires that disputed questions of facts are involved in the proceedings and in view of the presence of such disputed facts those should be resolved once for all by the trial Court itself upon adding the applicants as defendants in the instant suit. (Para-4, Mr. Justice Nozru Islam Chowdhury).
Interlocutory matter
20 BLT 383-17 BLC 159: Dhaka City Corporation Vs. M.R. Trading Co. & others: Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: In the instant Rule the application for addition of party arising out of interlocutory matter, not from the decision of the suit. Unless a party be added in suit, he cannot be a party to the appeal arising out of interlocutory matter. The applicant should approach the trial Court and should be a party in the original suit as unless the applicant be added in the suit he has no right to be added in a proceeding arising out of the suit, as such the applicant should move before the learned Joint District Judge for being added an a party in the suit. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Sharif Uddin Chaklader). Ref: 35 DLR(AD)42, 11 DLR 370, 22 DLR(SC)98.
Jurisdiction of the Revisional Court
61 DLR 46-13 MLR 393: Tabibullah & others Vs. Bangladesh & others: Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court for effective and effectual (সার্থক) adjudication of any legal proceeding before any Court including the Revisional Court can add a party in that proceeding. It is not at all necessary that some relief must have been claimed in a proceeding against the party which is joined in the proceeding as a party. (Para-7, Mr. Justice AK Badrul Huq). Ref: 1992 BLD(AD)174 44 DLR(AD)253, 1994 BLD(AD)235= 45 DLR(AD)120, 38 DLR(AD)308, 39 DLR 352, 1991 SCMR 1656.
Necessary parties must be made defendants
3 CLR(AD)214: Md. Sorboddin Miah Vs. Md. Serajul Haque & another: Admittedly, defendant No.1 sold the suit land to the other defendants of the present suit and those defendants purchased the suit land in 1979 and 1980 and the decree was passed in Title Suit No.153 of 1990 without impleading those defendants and as such, those defendants of the present suit are not at all bound by the ex-party decree passed in Title Suit No.153 of 1990. (Para-16, Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain).
Not necessary party
23 BLT(AD)01: Alauddin Masum Vs. Mosammat Aleya Begum & others: Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: The High Court Division failed to notice that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made and a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete or final decision of question involves in the matter. The respondent No. I has been improperly added as party in the writ petition. The name of the respondent No.1 be deleted. (Para-3 & 4: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha).
Petitioner in no way connected with the claim of the plaintiff
15 BLC 687: Chartered Bank Vs. Macneill & Kilburn Ltd. & others: Section 151 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: It appears that the trial Court without giving any reason by a mechanical order allowed the application for addition of party. However, in numerous decisions our apex Court came to conclusion that only on the ground of non-speaking order the High Court Division should not set aside any order rather the High Court Division should examine the case of the parties in its entirety (সম্পূর্ণতা). In the present case in hand it appears that the present petitioner in no way connected with the claim of the plaintiff in any manner. The entire claim is against the principal defendant. By the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff is trying to introducing a new case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate any such provision. The trial Court committed an error in passing the order occasioning failure of justice. (Para-6 & 7, Mr. Justice Mamnoon Rahman).
Proper party for effective disposal of the suit
67 DLR 149: Ferdous Ara Zainul Vs. Mahmuda Khatun & others: Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: However, his involvement as a signatory to the said agreement, the purpose of institution of the present suit impleading himself as a plaintiff and the reason for subsequent withdrawal therefrom would of course, assist the trial Court in adjudication upon the present suit properly and fairly. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that although the proposed defendant is not a necessary party but he should be impleaded as a proper party for effective disposal of the suit. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Md. Khurshid Alam Sarkar), Ref: 18 DLR 709, 53 DLR(AD)12, (AD)138, 2004 BLD(AD)223-9 BLC(AD)223.
Stranger, even he had direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute
14 BLC 747: Rokeya Begum Vs. Rezia Begum & another: Section 151 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: It is now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in the suit even he be stranger, if he had direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute. (Para-24, Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal). Ref: 1986 BLD 164, 38 DLR(AD)97.
36 BLD 207: Jabonnesa Akter Vs. Bangladesh Bank & another: On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the clear view that the opposite party No.1 is a necessary party in whose presence the suit should be decided for proper and effective adjudication. The proposition of law is by now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in a suit even if he is a stranger, if he has direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute. Under principles I find that the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted to the facts of the present case. (Para-12, Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal).
Third party-purchaser
20 BLT 97: Begum Kohinur Alam & others Vs. Md. Yousuf Sikder & others: Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 52 & 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: The facts upon which the third party petitioners want to be added is that after purchase they have inducted into possession, they are enjoying the suit property and took different connections from the different authorities, as such if there be any decree in the instant suit as such unless the petitioners be made a party, the decree cannot be executed, for which further litigation will be required. Moreover, the decision of 50 DLR spelt the apprehension of 3rd party which cannot be brush aside as it the plaintiffs do not take any interest in the suit as they sold the property, in that case third party petitioner will have to go for further litigation for protecting their property. We are of the view that third party petitioners be added as defendants, not as co-plaintiffs. (Para-8, Mr. Justice Sharif Uddin Chaklader).
