BINOD KUMER KHOWWALA VS BHAGWATI PRASAD KHOWALA & ORS.

1. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of family tree of Late Devi Prasad Khowala, owner
of Ram Niwas. The petitioner is entitled to 1/16th share of the property.
2. Two Suits have been filed- One by Bhagwati Prasad Khowala against the sale deed made
by Sajjan Kumar Khemka in favour of wif of Deijnesh Khowala and the second suit is
filed by LRs of Ramnath Khowala.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Petitioner was not made the party to the
proceedings and was being apprehended by the settlement talks under Order 1 Rule
10(2) of CPC before the trial court.
4. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the Petitioner has not
obtained the counsel of the plaintiff to add him as a party to the suit.
5. The High Court dismissed the petition based upon the wrong facts considering petitioner
to the party of the sub-judice suit of 1991 which was earlier dismissed in 1999.
6. During the case pending in Supreme Court the plaintiff and the defendants signed a
compromise deed deciding the entitlement of share in property. The younger brother of
the plaintiff showed himself as the karta of the family and during the said compromise
the share alloted to the petitioner is much less than what he deserves in this case.
7. The Supreme Court did not acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff never refused the
impleadment of petitioner. Moreover, though the other legal heirs have been impleaded in
the suit but petitioner has been denied and as a result the petitioner cannot oppose the
application under Order 23 Rule 3 as he is not the party to the suit.
8. The counsel strengthens the argument by referring to the landmark cases of Mumbai
International Airport Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And
Ors.(2010) 7 SCC 417 in which the supreme court held that any person whose presence
is required to order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the issue
is the necessary party and also Balutram vs. P Chellathangam and Ors. which clearly
contained that Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC enables the court to add necessary party to
effectually adjudicate upon the issues completely.
9. The counsel pleads to Supreme Court to grant a review petition under Article 137 of
Indian Constitution in the order and final judgment of the Special leave petition dated
16.04.2019.