SITA DEVI & ANR v. SHAMSHER PRASAD GUPTA & ORS.

, AIR 2010
SIKK 8

ISSUE:
Petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 had filed separate applications to join ongoing litigation. When
the petitioners had filed their said applications, the parties had already adduced their
evidence. The applications were rejected the court held that the petitioners did not have locus
standi and it was too late to file such applications. Thus, the main issue that arose, in this
case, was if the petitioners had locus standi to file such applications when the case was at its
fag end and both the parties in the suit had adduced their evidence.

APPLICATION:
Petitioner 1 was the widow of the deceased intestate and petitioner 2 was widow of one of the
sons in the lineal descendants, and therefore had absolute right over the properties in
question.
Court looked into Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and observed that the
petitioners fall in the category of Class I category of legal heir. Being an admitted position
that the properties in question are coparcenary properties, coupled with the petitioners having
locus standi, the court held that the petitioners are necessary parties. The court re-emphasised
the settled the position of law that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be
made effectively and that 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 the proceeding. The plaintiff can choose against whom he wants to proceed.
However, the court can direct the addition or substitution of parties subject to Order I rule
10.1 The court in the present case noticed that petitioners are widows fighting for justice and
vindication of their rights. In this male-dominated society, it might not have been possible for
the widows to know what was going on in their family regarding the coparcenary property.
Further, the court observed that Order I rule 10 does not specify any time limit to file
applications for joinders. The wording of the rule is contrary to the grounds on which the
applications were rejected. The court observed that the words “the Court may at any stage of
a suit” indicates that if the court wants to substitute or add any person as a plaintiff, the court

1
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524
can do so at any point of time, thus it can be implied that such applications can be filed at any
stage.