Third party filed application of impleadment under order 1 rule 10 in Execution Petition. The Execution Court allowed the Application. Now I want to challenge this order of Executing Court. Legal Query : 1. which is correct Court to challenge the order 2. Whether Appeal or Revision or Review 3. Under which provision of CPC the order can be challenged
Appeal in matter relating to Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
Provisions governing the impleadment procedure under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC are subject to appeal. Any party who is aggrieved after presenting the impleading application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC i.e party who get impleaded in the suit and aggrieved of such impleadment or party who has made an application for impleadment but did not succeed in getting the desired party impleaded can appeal to a higher court for such relief.
Order 1 rule 10 is not appealable.....as you stated... Please check below : and reply accordingly 9. An order under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. is admittedly not an appealable order as it is not included in the appealable orders mentioned under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. which provides exhaustively for such orders. Madhya Pradesh High Court Smt. Chameli Devi vs Mataprasad Prabhudayal And Ors. on 9 March, 1964 Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 MP 234
you are correct . i have perused said judgment cited by you . order is non appeal able
Dear Client,
The provisions concerning the impleadment procedure under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be challenged through an appeal. If any party feels aggrieved after filing an impleading application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, either because they have been impleaded in the suit and are dissatisfied with such impleadment, or because their application for impleadment was rejected and they failed to include the desired party, they have the right to appeal to a higher court seeking appropriate relief.
The general rule in regard to prosecution of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, be dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief.
He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief.
You were required to file your objection and present your side arguments, if you are still aggrieved by the orders passed in the implead petition, you can prefer a revision petition against the orders to set it aside for the reasons you may rely upon, before high court.
a civil revision petition is maintainable.
In Satish Chand vs Bhonrilal And Anr. on 6 February, 1991 of Rajasthan high court:
It was held that it is true that the plaintiff in a suit is dominus litus and he cannot be made, against his consent, to fight a third party other than the defendant impleaded by him.
It was also noted that it is true that it is not open to the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. to question a finding of fact, recorded by a subordinate court. It is also true that Section 115 C.P.C. applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction i.e. questions regarding irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a court and not against an order even though it is not perfectly legal or justified. It is further true that it is not competent for the High Court to correct even errors of fact or errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to decide the dispute. After the amendment in Section 115 CPC the High Court cannot interfere in revisional jurisdiction unless the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or shall cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made and therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the facts of the case.
Thus the court held that the revision against the orders passed by trial court an IA filed under order 1 rule 10 cpc is maintainable.
It willl come in revision before appeallate court
