2011 AIR CC 3211 (CHH) ::AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 450 (CHH.) ::(2011) 3 CgLJ 29 ::(2011) 3 MPHT 102

Chhattisgarh High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): N. K. Agarwal , J

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 1 , R. 3B (Madhya Pradesh Amendment), O. 1, R. 9; S. 99 — Impleading of State — Necessary party — State impleaded as party in proceedings in trial Court — Not impleading state as party in appeal — And dismissal of application for impleading state as party — Bad and perverse {" Where State is joined as a party for the purpose of Order 1, Rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code, there is no right to relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question nor can it be said that it would be impossible to pass an effective decree in the absence of the State. Even if a decree is passed without joining the State as a party to the proceedings to which Order 1, Rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code is attracted, the only result would be that the State would not be bound by the deree and in the event of an occasion arising for the purpose, it would be free to contend that the decree was secured for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Law. The efficacy of the decree between the parties would not be affected. It cannot be said that the decree passed would be a nullity or a decree without jurisdiction. Provision to Section 99 and proviso to Order 1, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code do not have any applicability to the case of non-joinder under Order 1, Rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case, before trial Court, the State was impleaded as a pa....