Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
M/s. Bhagwati Stone Crusher, Daruda Grit And Chips Industry Through Its Proprietor Shri Padam Singh S/o Rugh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate, Barmer – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1583 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1584 of 2019
Decided on : 12-09-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Land - Suit for permanent injunction - Prayed that Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 1 may be interfered, quashed and set aside - Held, Court finds that respondent No.2 is neither a necessary party, nor any relief has been claimed in suit against him and nor his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of suit - It is well settled principle of law that basically, it is for plaintiff in a suit to identify parties against whom, he has any grievance and to implead them as defendants in suit filed for necessary relief, plaintiff cannot be compelled to face litigation with persons against whom, he has no grievance - Petitioner/plaintiff being Dominus Litis or master of suit, cannot be compelled to implead respondent No.2 as a party respondent in suit against whom, he neither wishes to fight, nor is claiming any relief - Impugned order passed by respondent No.1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate is quashed and set aside - Writ petitions are allowed.
Key Points: - The court held that respondent No.2 is neither a necessary party nor has any relief been claimed against him, and his presence is not necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit. (!) - A plaintiff (Dominus Litis/master of the suit) cannot be compelled to implead a person as a party respondent if the plaintiff has no grievance against him and does not seek relief against him. (!) - The impugned order allowing an Order 1 Rule 10 application against respondent No.2 was quashed and the writ petitions were allowed. (!) - The decision discusses the scope and application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, including when a party can be added or struck out and the conditions under which such additions are justified for proper adjudication. (!) (!) (!) - The factual background involves a suit for permanent injunction against multiple respondents regarding land and stone-crushing operations, with disputes over encroachment and nearby complaints. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court referenced various precedents and opinions to support its interpretation of when a party is necessary or not under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. (!) (!) (!) - The court concluded that the stay and other pending applications were disposed of along with quashing the impugned order. (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. These writ petition have been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction-i) the impugned Order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexrue-7) passed by Respondent No. 1 may be interfered, quashed and set aside.
IN SBCWP No.1583/2019:-
“It is therefore respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted, order under challenge dated 18.01.2019 Annexure-05 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and application Annexure-02 filed by the respondent-applicant may kindly be rejected.”
IN SBCWP No.1584/2019:-
“It is therefore respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted, order under challenge dated 18.01.2019 Annexure-05 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and application Annexure-02 filed by the respondent-applicant may kindly be rejected.”
2. Since in all these cases, common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
3. For sake of brevity, all the facts have been taken from the writ petition No.1958/2019.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents; District Collector, Barmer, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Barmer, and the Assistant Engineer (Rural), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘JVVNL’), Barmer, before the court of Respondent No.1-Civil Judge, Barmer; which suit came to be registered as Civil Suit Nos.101/2018, 103/2018 and 112/2018.
5. By way of the order dated 17.07.2004 passed by District Collector, Barmer, Respondent No. 3, land admeasuring 3 bighas in Khasra No. 299/6 (New Khasra No. 405/299) of Village Daruda was allotted to the Petitioner-Plaintiff for the purposes of setting an industry, on which the Petitioner established the stone crushing business.
6. The Petitioner-Plaintiff came to receive a notice dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which it was contended that the Petitioner has encroached on the land of the Animal Husbandry Department, i.e.; Khasra No. 397/290 and consequently the Petitioner-Plaintiff was asked to remove the stone crushing business thereon. Despite Petitioner-Plaintiff's detailed reply dated 11.09.2018, the land in question has been allotted to the Petitioner after following due-process and on which the Respondent Animal Husbandry Department is not claiming title adverse to the Petitioner, thus, there was no occasion for the Respondent No. 4 to proceed with the eviction notice. Then the Petitioner came to receive a notice dated 04.09.2018 issued by JVVNL, Respondent No. 5, threatening to disconnect Petitioner's electricity connection holding the Petitioner to be trespasser on the basis of intimation received from Respondent No. 4.
7. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred the instant Civil Suit No. 101/2018 before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, respondent No.1, praying for permanent injunction against respondent No.3 to 5 from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question as well as from uprooting Petitioner's stone crushing machine from the land in question.
8. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 18.09.2018 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. However, simultaneously, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) was moved by Shri Shaitan Singh, Respondent No. 2 for impleading him as a party respondent in the suit.
9. In response to the application filed by Shri Shaitan Singh, Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner Plaintiff submitted a detailed reply. The learned trial court vide order dated 18.01.2019
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 ....
In Writ Petitions, necessary parties are those vitally affected by the decision sought, and the concept of necessary party is wider than in Civil Suits.
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 main legal principle established in the judgment is the application of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, which allows the Court to add parties to the proceedings to enable effective adjudication and set....
Impleadment as part defendant in suit – Legal claim of petitioner cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay or advance stage of proceeding of suit.
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
