RAMESH HIRANAND KUNDANMAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

RAMESH HIRANAND KUNDANMAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

The second respondent (lessee) neither has a direct nor legal interest in the subject-matter of the suit regarding demolition of the alleged unauthorised constructions by the appellant; its presence is not required for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The order/judgment in the suit will not be legally binding on the second respondent regarding the subject-matter of the notice. The courts below erred in treating the second respondent as a necessary or proper party for impleadment.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal; First Respondent Defendant: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay; Second Respondent: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Order (writ Petition No. 4229 of 1989), Post Interlocutory Orders on Impleadment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders for impleadment set aside.
Legal Topics
Impleadment, Necessary Party, Proper Party, Dominus Litis, Order I Rule 10 CPC
Civil Procedure Impleadment Necessary Party Proper Party Dominus Litis Order I Rule 10 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal

Appellant Plaintiff

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

First Respondent Defendant

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Order (writ Petition No. 4229 of 1989), Post Interlocutory Orders on Impleadment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for injunction against removal of alleged unauthorised constructions.

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent (lessee) neither has a direct nor legal interest in the subject-matter of the suit regarding demolition of the alleged unauthorised constructions by the appellant; its presence is not required for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The order/judgment in the suit will not be legally binding on the second respondent regarding the subject-matter of the notice. The courts below erred in treating the second respondent as a necessary or proper party for impleadment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders for impleadment set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 13.10.1989 of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4229 of 1989 set aside.
  • Orders of City Civil Court directing impleadment of second respondent set aside.