Md. Abdul Rahim @ Rahim Badsha and 18 Ors v. Md. Abdul Rahim

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010054982023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP(IO)/70/2023o MD.oABDULoRAHIMo@oRAHIMoBADSHAoANDo18oORSo S/OoLATEoAYANoALI 2:oJAYNUBoBEGUM oD/OoLATEoJAYANoALI oVILL-BAROIPARA 3:oABDULoMUTALEBo@oABDULoMATLEB oS/OoLATEoYUSUFoALI oVILL-MANDALPARA 4:oUMMEHANIoBEGUM oW/OoNURoISLAM oD/OoLATEoHATEMoALI oVILL-BAROIPARA 5:oAZIZULoHAQUE oS/OoLATEoHASMAToALI oVILL-BAROIPARA 6:oSAHEDoALI oS/OoLATEoABEDoALI 7:oAHEDoALI oAGEoABOUTo38oYEARS 8:oOMARoALI oAGEoABOUTo36oYEARS 9:oJUBBARoALIo@oABDULoJUBBAR oALLoAREoSONSoOFoLATEoABEDoALI 10:oAYANoALI oS/OoLATEoHAJIoSAJANoALI Page No.# 2/4 11: MOHAMMAD ALI AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS 12: ABDUL HYE AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS 13: GAJIUR RAHMAN AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS 14: AKKAS ALI ALL ARE SONS OF LATE OSMAN ALI 15: FELANI BEGUM @ REJIA KHATUN AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS 16: MONOWARA BEGUM AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS 17: JAHANARA BEGUM ALL ARE D/O LATE OSMAN ALI 18: ARSHAD ALI S/O LATE IMAN ALI 19: SAHITON BEGUM D/O LATE IMAN ALI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL-BAROIPARA. ALL ARE UNDER PACHIM SHAILMARY MOUZA P.O.-GHANSHIMULLY P.S.-KHARUPETIA DIST-DARRANG ASSA VERSUS MD. ABDUL RAHIM S/O LATE ABDUL SAMAD, VILL-BAROIPARA, MOUZA-PACHIM SAILMARI, P.S.-KHARUPETIA, DIST-DARRANG, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : R RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent :

Page No.# 3/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

15.03.2023 Heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Rahman appearing for the petitioners.

¶2This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Munsiff No.2, Mangaldai in Misc(J) Case No.06/2018.

¶3Md. Abdul Samad filed a suit against Auyb Ali and others on the issue of a dispute over land. These petitioners filed an application before the Trial Court claiming that they are necessary parties in the suit and prayed for impleading them as defendants. The Trial Court declined to allow the said prayer.

¶4It may be mentioned that the petitioners approached the Trial Court when the hearing of plaintiffs' evidence was already closed and the hearing of the evidence of the defendants' side was going on. The Trial Court held that if the present petitioners are impleaded as defendants, the court has to go for de novo trial. For that reason, the Trial Court dismissed the petition of the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6In a civil suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis. It means that it is the wish of the plaintiff against whom he would seek relief in a suit. It is also the Page No.# 4/4 prerogative of the Trial Court to decide on the point of necessity of a particular person in a suit. If the Trial Court finds that the suit is bad for non joinder of a particular party, then the Trial Court would ask the plaintiff to implead those parties. In a civil suit, nobody is expected to ask the court to implead him as one of the parties. This prerogative lies with the plaintiff and the court itself only.

¶7Here, in this case, Trial Court has not given any opinion about the necessity of the petitioners in the suit. Rather, the petitioners themselves appeared before the court at the final stage of the hearing of the suit.

¶8The Trial Court has rightly held that if they are impleaded as parties in the suit, the court will have to go for de novo trial of the suit.

¶9For the aforesaid two reasons, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant