The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirms that a revisional court may direct impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC to secure complete adjudication in partition suits, without adjudicating on disputed title, and such procedural orders—if passed with proper jurisdiction and reasoning—will not ordinarily be interfered with under Article 227. Judgment affirms existing precedent; binding on subordinate courts, relevant to suits involving partition and necessary parties.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/1652/2017 of DHANANJAY BISHT Vs DEVRAJ SINGH BISHT |
| CNR | UKHC010053862017 |
| Date of Registration | 11-07-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of the state |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The revisional court rightly exercised jurisdiction in allowing impleadment of respondent as a necessary and proper party to the partition suit, limited to ensuring complete adjudication and not adjudicating on merits of title or ownership. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with such procedural orders unless there is patent lack of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Disputed issues of relinquishment and family settlements are to be decided by the trial court on evidence—not in writ or revision proceedings. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was available to petitioner; non-appearance of counsel does not vitiate judicial orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiffs filed partition suit regarding property in Simalgair Bazaar, Pithoragarh. Petitioner filed written statement. Respondent no. 1 applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment; trial court rejected. Revisional court, on revision, allowed impleadment. Petitioner contested that respondent had no claim owing to earlier relinquishment. Revisional court order challenged by petitioner in writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts in Uttarakhand regarding impleadment and exercise of revisional power under Section 115 CPC, and scope of Article 227 interference |
| Persuasive For | Civil courts in other jurisdictions considering impleadment and supervising revisional court’s application of Order I Rule 10 CPC |
| Follows | Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, established parameters for interference under Article 227 Constitution of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that impleadment to ensure complete adjudication does not amount to an adjudication on title or ownership.
- Clarifies that refusal to adjourn or absence of counsel does not render a reasoned order illegal if opportunity of hearing existed.
- High Court will not interfere under Article 227 with well-reasoned procedural orders of revisional courts passed within proper jurisdiction.
- Disputed facts involving prior relinquishment or family settlement must be decided at trial, not in writ or revision.
- Challenge to procedural/jurisdictional orders requires demonstration of jurisdictional error or material irregularity—not mere disagreement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The revisional court acted within its powers under Section 115 CPC by directing impleadment of respondent no. 1 as a necessary and proper party, facilitating complete and effective adjudication of the partition suit.
- The High Court examined whether the revisional court’s order suffered from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity; none was found.
- The High Court explained that the revisional court’s order pertained solely to procedure and party impleadment, not to the adjudication of substantive title, which remains open for determination by the trial court on evidence.
- The contention regarding lack of opportunity of hearing was rejected, with the court noting that non-appearance of counsel, where opportunity existed, does not vitiate orders.
- The petitioner’s arguments on family settlement and relinquishment were held to be disputed factual matters fit for trial, not for resolution in writ or revision.
- No manifest illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order, and thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that revisional court erred by relying on surmises and not considering that respondent no. 1 was concerned only with property already disposed and had relinquished claims over disputed property.
- Asserted he was denied an opportunity of hearing due to absence of counsel, leading to breach of natural justice.
- Claimed revisional court’s order suffered from material irregularity and warranted interference.
Respondents
- Maintained that the revisional court’s order was reasoned, legal, and free from infirmity, given after examining the record.
- Argued that writ petition raised no substantial question of law or jurisdictional error, and was a delaying tactic.
- Emphasized that respondent no. 1 was rightly impleaded as necessary and proper party, having direct interest involved in the suit.
- Contended revisional jurisdiction was duly exercised as per Section 115 CPC; writ interference unwarranted.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs (respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4) filed a partition suit regarding properties located at Simalgair Bazaar, Pithoragarh (Plot Nos. 46 and 47). The petitioner filed a written statement. Respondent no. 1 moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment, which the trial court rejected. On revision, the District Judge allowed impleadment. The petitioner challenged this order by writ petition, arguing previous relinquishment by respondent no. 1 and lack of hearing in revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure: Application for addition of parties to secure complete and effective adjudication; procedural provision for impleadment.
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure: Revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors or material irregularity; used by District Judge to allow impleadment.
- Article 227, Constitution of India: High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, invoked by petitioner to challenge the revisional order—scope of interference discussed, limited to cases of patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established law regarding exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and the High Court’s limited interference under Article 227.