Power to adjourn hearing and direct persons appearing interested to be made respondents
Full Text
(1) Where it appears to the Court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made a party to the appeal, is interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future day to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent.
(2) No respondent shall be added under this rule, after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, allows that to be done, on such terms as to costs as it thinks fit.
Plain English Summary
Empowers the appellate court to adjourn the hearing and implead any person who was a party to the original suit and remains interested in the appeal's outcome as a respondent; sub-rule (2) allows addition even after limitation expires upon recorded reasons and costs.
Key Legal Elements
- Person Must Be Party to Original Suit: Applies strictly to persons who were parties in the trial court but omitted in appeal memo.
- Interested in Result of Appeal: Person must possess a legal interest that could be affected by appellate decree.
- Discretionary Power: Appellate court may act suo motu or upon application of an existing party.
- Addition After Limitation (Sub-rule 2): Inserted by 1976 CPC Amendment; court can implead beyond limitation only for recorded reasons and on payment of costs.
Practical Note
Impleadment of Omitted Parties at Appellate Stage: 1. Scope of Rule 20: Order 41 Rule 20 does not apply to strangers to the suit; it only covers persons who were already parties before the trial court. To add a stranger/third party, resort must be had to Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 107 and Section 151 CPC. 2. Sub-rule (2) and Limitation: Prior to the 1976 Amendment, conflicting views existed as to whether a party against whom limitation had expired could be added. The Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram (1971) 1 SCC 265 held that where a decree proceeds on a common ground, non-joinder is curable. The 1976 Amendment formally codified the court's power to implead after limitation upon recording special reasons (Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124).
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहां सुनवाई के समय न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि कोई ऐसा व्यक्ति, जो उस न्यायालय के वाद में पक्षकार था जिसकी डिक्री के विरुद्ध अपील की गई है, किंतु जिसे अपील में पक्षकार नहीं बनाया गया है, अपील के परिणाम में हितबद्ध है, वहां न्यायालय सुनवाई को न्यायालय द्वारा नियत किए जाने वाले किसी भावी दिन के लिए स्थगित कर सकेगा और यह निदेश दे सकेगा कि ऐसे व्यक्ति को प्रत्यर्थी बनाया जाए।
(2) अपील की परिसीमा काल की समाप्ति के पश्चात इस नियम के अधीन कोई भी प्रत्यर्थी तब तक नहीं जोड़ा जाएगा जब तक कि न्यायालय, अभिलिखित किए जाने वाले कारणों से, खर्चों के संबंध में ऐसे निबंधनों पर जैसा वह ठीक समझे, वैसा किए जाने की अनुज्ञा न दे।