IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6774 of 2015
(@ SLP(C) NO. 16650 OF 2012)
Poonam ... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
14. First, it is necessary to understand about the concept
of necessary and proper party. A Four-judge Bench in Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board
12
Page 13
of Revenue, Bihar and another2 has observed thus:-
“7. ....it would be convenient at the outset to
ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in
a proceeding. The law on the subject is well
settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A
necessary party is one without whom no order
can be made effectively; a proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be made
but whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved in this
proceeding. ”
15. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India
and others3 the court referred to the said decision and has
opined thus:-
“36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted.
Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High
Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed
as parties. There is no dispute over the factum
that they are senior to the appellants and have
been conferred the benefit of promotion to the
higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is
issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to
jeopardise their interest. When they have not
been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult
to grant.
37. In this context we may refer with profit to the
decision in Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P.4
wherein it has been held thus: (SCC p. 151, para
56).......
50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as
there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before
the High Court was trying to establish her right in an
independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal
right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent
legal right. It was the first allottee who could have
continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled.
He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action
and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right
is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he
has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived
and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the
third party.
51. In view of the aforesaid premises, we do not perceive
any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..........................., J.
[R. Banumathi]
New Delhi
October 29, 2015
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6774 of 2015
(@ SLP(C) NO. 16650 OF 2012)
Poonam ... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
14. First, it is necessary to understand about the concept
of necessary and proper party. A Four-judge Bench in Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board
12
Page 13
of Revenue, Bihar and another2 has observed thus:-
“7. ....it would be convenient at the outset to
ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in
a proceeding. The law on the subject is well
settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A
necessary party is one without whom no order
can be made effectively; a proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be made
but whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved in this
proceeding. ”
15. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India
and others3 the court referred to the said decision and has
opined thus:-
“36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted.
Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High
Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed
as parties. There is no dispute over the factum
that they are senior to the appellants and have
been conferred the benefit of promotion to the
higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is
issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to
jeopardise their interest. When they have not
been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult
to grant.
37. In this context we may refer with profit to the
decision in Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P.4
wherein it has been held thus: (SCC p. 151, para
56).......
50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as
there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before
the High Court was trying to establish her right in an
independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal
right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent
legal right. It was the first allottee who could have
continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled.
He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action
and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right
is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he
has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived
and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the
third party.
51. In view of the aforesaid premises, we do not perceive
any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..........................., J.
[R. Banumathi]
New Delhi
October 29, 2015
Comments
Post a Comment