Issue Of Non-Joinder Under Order 1 Rule 10 Carries No Weight Unless Party Is Indispensable: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court was considering a Petition against an order by which the Application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
Justice Arun Monga, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the issue of non-joinder sought to be raised in the written statement does not hold any weight unless the party is indispensable under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court refused to allow the amendment to the Written Statement.
The Court was considering a Petition against an order by which the Application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
The Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "It is settled position that the plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to choose the parties to be impleaded in a suit. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to include or exclude particular individuals. The issue of non-joinder raised in the amendment does not hold any weight unless the party is indispensable under Order I Rule 10 CPC."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rishabh Shrimali while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Nikhil Ajmera.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent, Plaintiff in the suit, had filed it seeking ejectment, arrears of rent, and possession of a property, claiming to have purchased it in 2014. He alleged that an oral tenancy existed between him and the Petitioner, Defendant in the suit. The Petitioner, on the other hand contested the claim, stating he took possession of the property based on an agreement after paying ₹25,000 and supplying dairy products worth ₹1,50,000 to the previous owner. He denied any landlord-tenant relationship and challenged the validity of the Plaintiff’s ownership, arguing that the claimed seller was not authorized to sell.
During the suit's pendency, the Defendant filed an Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend his Written Statement. The Plaintiff opposed the amendment, and subsequently, the Civil Judge dismissed the Defendant’s amendment application. The Review Petition filed in this regard remains pending.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Trial Court ignored the Petitioner’s plea about non-joinder of necessary parties—an issue that affects the suit’s maintainability. He clarified that a typographical error misnamed the party in the amendment application, which was sought to be corrected in a pending Review Petition, therefore, the same does not come in the way of the present petition.
Reasoning By Court
Noting that it is the stand of the Petitioner that amendment is required only for the purposes of elaborating, which has already been stated in the Written Statement, i.e. that the previous owner ought to have been impleaded by the Plaintiff as a party, and yet he has taken no steps.
The Court held that issue of non-joinder in amendment to written statement does not hold any weight unless the party is indispensable under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
"In any case, if the defendant wishes to rely on what has been already stated he is at liberty to bring the previous owner as his supporting witness, it is not mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to make him a party," the Court observed.
The Court was further of the view that such an Application should have been filed at the very threshold of the Suit proceedings and not when the entire trial is almost at the culmination stage and therefore, it is nothing but a delay tactic
"The proposed amendment, if at all, could and should have been raised at the beginning of the suit. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Proviso) requires that amendments should not be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the party demonstrates that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. Herein, no such explanation has been/ was provided," the Court ruled.
It also stated that the rejection of amendment doesn't prejudice the Defendant as the core contentions already exist in the written statement, and he retains all procedural options to prove his case.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Shrilal vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi (2025:RJ-JD:25396)
Click here to read/ download Order
