SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 7.9.2009 and 23.3.2009 and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the application 211-Ga filed by the petitioners on 28.4.2009. It appears that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners namely Ram Shanker Chaurasia filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of first and second floor of House No. 46/153, Halsi Road, Kanpur Nagar. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the respondent 1st Set namely Vinod Bihari Mehrotra has expired on 1.2.1993. The release application was allowed and the respondent-tenant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Sri Ram Shanker Chaurasia died, as such the application was moved by the respondent-tenant for substituting the heirs of Ram Shanker Chaurasia. The application was kept pending and the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently after a lapse of considerable period, an application for recall of the order was filed to restore the appeal with an application that Sri Ram Shanker Chaurasia has executed a will in favour of two sons Virendra Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar which is a registered document and a compromise has been entered upon between the parties. Therefore, the appeal be decided accordingly. When the petitioners came to know, they moved an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party in the said proceeding. The said application has been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being natural heirs of Sri Ram Shanker Chaurasia were entitled to be impleaded as parties. A suit has already been filed for injunction in which the injunction order is operating that the persons in whose favour the will has been executed will not alienate the property in dispute. The petitioners being natural sons are entitled to be impleaded as in the earlier application filed for substitution, the petitioner was shown as one of the heirs of Sri ram Shanker Chaurasia. Admittedly the said application was not disposed of nor any order was passed, therefore, the second application filed by the respondent-tenant without getting the disposal of the earlier application itself was not maintainable but the court below has not considered this aspect of the matter and rejected the claim of the partitioners. The petitioners being sons of Sri Ram Shanker Chaurasia were entitled to be impleaded as the respondents. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Mohammad Rafiq Rajbi vs. Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge-1st, Varanasi and others reported in A.R.C. 1999(2) Page-834 and has placed reliance upon paragraphs 15,16,18,20 and 22 which are quoted as under: "15. It is true that an Officer or an Authority does not possess inherent powers like the one vested in a Court or a quasi-judicial authority required to act Judicially, inherent powers have been vested in a Court under Section 151, code of Civil procedure. It is also now well settled that application for substitution can be entertained, even if there is no specific provision, in exercise of powers under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, See AIR 1972 Allahabad 504 (506) (FB). 16. Section 151 in the Code of Civil Procedure is aimed to prevent fraud, oppression and abuse of the process of a Court or miscarriage of justice. The object of law is to meet justice. The underlying object in incorporating 151 in the Code of Civil Procedure is to shorten the litigation, to avoid protection or proceedings and miscarriage/abortion of justice. It cannot be disputed that there can be addition or parties against the wished of plaintiff if one is to be impleaded being necessary or proper party. This is underlined principle under Order Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure as well. Before a person is impleaded, the only condition precedent is that he must be directly and legally interested in the action. Once such person is impleaded, he shall be bound by the result of the action and the question required to be settled in the action which could be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. In other words, the action and the answer to the same, if affects or prejudices legal rights of a person he must be allowed to join the proceedings. 18. In following judgments it is held that in exercise of 'inherent powers' under Section 151 in the Code of Civil Procedure a Court can allow impleadment of a party in the ends of justice: (1) 1986 Allahabad 174 (177), Dwarka Prasad V. Kishan Lal (2) 1954 Allahaabad11 (12) Paras 7 and 8 (D.B.) (3) AIR 1958 SC 394 (398) (4) 1982 (2) SCC 602, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 20. In the light of the above observation, to prevent abuse of process of Court to meet the ends of justice and in order to secure the ends of justice a Court can always exercise its inherent power vested under Section 151 in the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. In last ten decades there has been tremendous expansion of 'legal horizon of our country. Legal process is revolutionised which necessarily requires transparency and procedural laws to be elastic so as to avoid rigidity and in turn make the system meaningful and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. ;