SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 1693

MAHESH BHAGWATI
Ghanshyam Dev – Appellant
Versus
Mali Ram – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mahendra Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Dharamveer Tholia, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.4.2007, whereby the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Virat Nagar, Jaipur dismissed the application of the petitioners-applicants filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question, hence they are necessary party in the suit, but the learned trial court arbitrarily rejected their application and gainsaid to implead them as party in the suit.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioners have claimed themselves to be the owner of the land in question on the basis of entries in revenue record, but this argument has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the mutation was entered in the revenue record on the basis of forged Will allegedly scribbled by deceased Harlal. The suit had been pending since 1996 and till 2006, the petitioners-applicants never endeavoured to become a party in the suit. Had they been interested in the suit, they would have filed an application much before and prayed for their impleadmen








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top