In a significant legal ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the case of the Shop Ownership Dispute has taken a new turn with the allowance of the impleadment application involving Pawan Kumar. The court’s decision overturns previous rejections, marking a crucial development in the case. Stay tuned for more updates on this evolving legal saga.
Facts
- The first defendant admitted the plaintiff’s claim but stated he had given permission to the second defendant to use the shop for business.
- The plaintiff filed for an amendment to add Pawan Kumar as the third defendant and alleged collusion between Pawan Kumar and the other defendants.
- The plaintiff’s application for amendment and impleading Pawan Kumar was dismissed.
- The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
- The High Court did not provide reasons for rejecting the prayer for impleadment of Pawan Kumar.
- Pawan Kumar, as per the second defendant’s written statement, is in possession of the suit shop and operates a business named ‘Pawan Cloth House’ as its sole proprietor.
- The High Court failed to examine the application on merits regarding the impleadment of Pawan Kumar.
Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal
Analysis
- Pawan Kumar, who is now revealed to be the father of the second defendant, is considered a necessary party to the suit due to his possession of the shop.
- The second defendant did not disclose the relationship with Pawan Kumar in his written statement.
- It is unclear how the first defendant, as the mortgagee, handed over possession of the shop to a third party without informing the plaintiff.
- The capacity in which the second defendant obtained possession of the shop is vague as no documentation has been presented.
- Pawan Kumar’s unauthorized possession of the shop is acknowledged by all parties.
- There is a possibility that the plaintiff was unaware of Pawan Kumar’s possession of the shop due to the close familial relationship between the defendants and Pawan Kumar.
- The second defendant is confirmed to be the nephew of the first defendant according to the written statement.
- It is noted that typically such an application regarding possession should be filed before the trial commences, but the trial has already started in this case.
- The plaintiff was unaware of the internal arrangement between the defendants and Pawan Kumar.
- It is not determined whether there was collusion to withhold information from the plaintiff.
- Despite the belated filing of the application for impleadment and amendment of the plaint, it should be allowed in the interest of justice.
- Allowing the application will prevent the plaintiff from facing further litigation during the execution stage if the suit is decreed in his favor.
Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code
Decision
- Orders passed by Trial Court and High Court rejecting application for impleadment and amendment of the plaint were set aside.
- The application for impleadment and amendment of the plaint was allowed.
- Appellant directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 before the Trial Court within 8 weeks.
- Trial Court instructed to decide the case on merits based on evidence produced before it.
- Trial Court was directed to be uninfluenced by the observations made by the higher court.
- Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the plaintiff by the higher court.
- The instant appeal was allowed with the mentioned terms.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector
Case Title: KAMLESH GUPTA Vs. MANGAT RAI
Case Number: C.A. No.-007556-007556 / 2019
