Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3661 of 2017
Decided on : 18-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4 - Sale-deed - Trying to demolish lawful construction on basis of false complaints - Decree for permanent injunction - Order passed by learned Civil Judge kindly be quashed and set aside and application filed by paplicant may kindly be allowed in toto as prayed for – Petitioner has not placed any evidence or detail in regard to plot in question being in his lawful possession - Para 15.
Finding of the Court :
Plaintiff was served various notices by respondent No.2 directing her to remove encroachments on plot in dispute and because respondent No.1 was under apprehension that she may not only be dispossessed but construction raised by her on plot in dispute would also be demolished - Therefore, in such circumstances she has filed suit claiming relief solely against respondent No.2 - It is obligatory upon person, who files an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to establish before Court that he is a necessary party to lis and his rights are involved in subject matter in suit filed and that his rights would be adversely affected if he is not impleaded as party in lis - Petitioner has admittedly failed to establish before learned Court below as to how his rights would be affected if he is not impleaded as party defendant to suit moreover, when no relief has been sought against petitioner - Court does not find any infirmity with impugned order passed by learned Court below.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
II. Consequence thereof, the petitioner/applicant may be impleaded as party in the civil suit pending before the learned Court below and trial Court be directed to proceed in the matter while taking written statement and evidence by the petitioner on record.
III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.2 alleging that the plaitniff had purchased a plot ad measuring 1400 sq. ft. at Kanta Kathuriya Colony, Bikaner through registered sale-deed dated 03.05.2000 from one Javed Ali. The patta of the disputed was in the name of father Javed Ali being Patta No.697 dated 28.11.1974, issued by Gram Panchayat Shivbari, Bikaner. The disputed plot is in the use and occupation of the plaintiff and it has further been alleged that permission for repairing and construction was granted by the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner on 01.02.2002 for the plot in dispute Khancha B-26 and thereafter, the construction was made over it.
3. It is alleged in the suit that one Harichand (present petitioner) tried to get the plot in question from the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner while alleging that he is a resident of Plot No.B-26 and he also filed a suit in the name of Harichand Vs. Municipal Corporation, Bikaner and Rehmat. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2011.
4. It was also alleged in the plaint that upon the complaints filed by Harichand (petitioner) before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, the Corporation demanded documents relating to the property, which were accordingly shown to them and a notice dated 12.03.2004 was served upon her to which a reply dated 26.12.2015 was filed. It has also been alleged that the Municipal Corporation is trying to demolish the lawful construction and repairs of the plaintiff on the basis of false complaints and are further trying to dispossess her from the plot in dispute. It was thus, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant for not demolishing her construction and further not to dispossessing her from the plot in dispute.
5. The respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation filed its written statement and denied almost all the averments made in the plaint.
6. When the petitioner came to know about filing of such suit, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as a party-defendant. In the said application, the petitioner narrated the facts and stated that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit while concealing material facts and the disputed khancha land is adjacent to plot No.B-26. It has further been stated that the disputed land, which has been said to be purchased from one Javed Ali through registered sale-deed and the pata of which is in the name of Shamsher, father of Javed Ali issued by the Gram Panchayat, Shivbari, Bikaner has actually never been issued by the Gram Panchayat, nor was there any record of issuance of the same. It was alleged that in such situation, the patta of the disputed land ought to have been deemed to be forged one. The petitioner alleged in the application that he had purchased plot No.B-26 from its original owner through registered sale-deed and house was constructed over the said plot in accordance with the Rules. It has been alleged that the dispu
Object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that person whose presence is necessary before Court, is made a necessary party to effectually adjudicate upon rights of parties and settle all questions involved in ....
The court affirmed that a necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the discretion to add such parties under Order I Rule 10....
The court emphasized the necessity of including all parties with direct interest in a suit for comprehensive adjudication, rejecting the exclusion based solely on prior dismissals.
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
The court clarified the criteria for necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a party's independent claim does not warrant inclusion in a suit if it do....
The presence of a party whose presence is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy should be permitted in a civil suit. A suit for injunction can include parties whose presence would enab....
A plaintiff has the prerogative to choose parties in a suit and cannot be compelled to include a party against whom no relief is sought.
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
