0

A ‘necessary party’ to a suit can only be someone who may be a ‘necessary witness’ to the case: High Court of Delhi

A ‘necessary party’ to a suit can be someone who may only be a ‘necessary witness’ and if the plaintiff opposes such impleadment, the Court may dismiss the suit for non-joinder of a necessary party, instead of impleading the party and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Prateek Jalan in the case of KAILASH NATH AGGARWAL vs. SUNILA DASS & ANR. [CM(M) 89/2022] on 28.01.2022.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff agreed to purchase a cottage in Delhi which was being redeveloped in the year 2004. The re-development was being carried out by respondent’s company of which respondent 2 (R.K. Jain) was a director. The defendant requested the plaintiff for a friendly loan of ₹50 lakhs for a period of one year. The plaintiff averred that she had transferred the amount of ₹50 lakhs from her bank account to defendant’s account. The defendant claimed to have forwarded the money advanced by the plaintiff to one Ravi Kumar, in view of which R.K. Jain issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff.

In view of the defendant’s failure to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff has sought recovery of the said amount of ₹50 lakhs along with interest thereupon. The defendant filed the subject application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and sought impleadment of R.K. Jain as a defendant to the suit.

The plaintiff’s counsel opposed the application on the ground that R.K. Jain had no concern with the transaction in question and it concerns only the recovery of the amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant along with interest. The plaintiff specifically denied that any payment was made to R.K. Jain by the defendant on her account or at her request.

Considering the facts and circumstances, Court did not consider it appropriate to compel plaintiff to add R.K. Jain as a defendant as he can neither be termed as a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit as framed by the plaintiff. The petition along with the pending application was dismissed.

The Court observed that, “a ‘necessary party’ to a suit can be someone who may only be a ‘necessary witness’ and if the plaintiff opposes such impleadment, the Court may dismiss the suit for non-joinder of a necessary party, instead of impleading the party”.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat