Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 1220
[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1024 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Amrit Lal Taya Vs. Vishwanath & Ors. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Amrit Lal Taya
Versus
Vishwanath & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2008, decided on 03.11.2009
M.R. Singhvi, for Petitioner;
M.S. Singhvi, for Respondent(s).
Headnote:C.P.C., Order 1 Rule 10(2), Sec. 151 — Impleadment — Defendant No. 1 filed application u/O. 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for impleading as party — Trial Court allowed to implead them as defendant No. 6 and 7 — After 21 years filed application u/O. 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to delete defendants No. 6 and 7 from the array defendants — Allowed — Held — Such type of applications ought to have been dismissed at threshold as not maintainable in view of the fact that legislature has not granted liberty to any litigant to play hide and seek with the provisions of law — No litigant can be permitted to file application contrary to their own version—Quashing and set aside. (Paras 25, 27 to 30)
Writ petitions allowed.
fl-iz-la-] vkns'k 1 fu;e 10¼2½] /kkjk 151 & i{kdkj cukuk & i{kdkj ds :i esa lfEefyr djus ds fy, izfroknh la- 1 us vkns'k 1 fu;e 10¼2½ fl-iz-la- ds rgr vkosnu i= nk;j fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mudks izfroknh la- 6 o 7 ds :i esa lfEefyr djus dh vuqefr iznku dh &21 o"kZ i'pkr~ vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 fl-iz-la- ds rgr vkosnu fd;k vkSj izfroknhx.k ds Øe ls izfroknh la- 6 o 7 dks gVkus dh izkFkZuk dh & Lohdkj gqvk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bl izdkj ds vkosnu i= ngyht ij gh [kkfjt dj fn;s tkus pkfg;s D;ksafd bl rF; dh n`f"V ls ;g iks"k.kh; ugha gS fd fo/kku us fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds lkFk yqdk-fNih [ksyus dh vktknh fdlh Hkh eqdnesa ckt ugha nh gS & fdlh Hkh eqdnesa ckt dks vius Lo;a ds o`rkUr ds foijhr vkosnu nk;j djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrh & vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 25] 27 ls 30½
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The case involves a long-standing civil suit for specific performance of a contract, initiated in 1982, with multiple amendments and proceedings over more than two decades (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Respondents initially sought to implead certain parties as defendants, which was granted by the trial court, and the suit was amended accordingly. The order for impleadment was based on an application filed by a defendant, and the parties did not object at that time (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
During the trial, new defendants were added, and various applications were filed, including one under Order VII Rule 11(A) to dismiss the suit against some defendants, which was later withdrawn (!) (!) .
-
The suit experienced significant procedural developments, including amendments to issues and pleadings, and was subject to multiple applications, some involving alleged fraudulent activities and forged documents, leading to criminal proceedings against certain advocates (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
A critical procedural issue arose when a defendant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to delete certain defendants from the suit after more than 20 years of the initial order for their impleadment. The court observed that such an application was not maintainable because the earlier order for impleadment had attained finality and was not challenged (!) (!) .
-
The trial court's order allowing the deletion of defendants No. 6 and 7 was deemed to be in error because it disregarded the earlier final order and the legal procedure, which does not permit such a reversal after such a long period without proper review or appeal (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court found that the trial court's decision was perverse and illegal, emphasizing that the earlier order for impleadment was still valid and in effect. The order allowing the deletion was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously (!) .
-
The case also involves serious allegations of fraud, including the filing of forged applications and signatures, which led to criminal investigations. The court highlighted the importance of thorough investigation into these allegations (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the court took a stance against procedural irregularities, emphasizing that applications contrary to earlier final orders are not sustainable, and ordered the trial to proceed without delay. The order of the trial court was quashed, and the matter was remitted for proper adjudication (!) .
-
The court also directed that the investigation into the FIR related to the alleged forgery and fraud should be conducted thoroughly, and monitored by the relevant authorities (!) (!) .
In summary, the primary legal concern revolves around the procedural integrity of the order for impleadment and the inadmissibility of a late application to delete parties after a significant lapse of time, which was deemed to violate legal principles of finality and procedural law.
2. Facts of the case speak that the petitioner-plaintiff preferred suit for specific performance of contract on 23.1.1982 before the District Judge, Udaipur and the said suit was filed against 5 defendants namely, (1) Vishwa-nath, (2) Mahaveer Prasad, (3) Sushil Kumar, (4) Krishan Kumar, and (5) Sevak Ram. During the course of trial, on behalf of defendant No. 2 Mahaveer Prasad, an application was filed by his counsel Shri Satya Narayan Gupta so as to implead Vijay Singh Jhala which is placed on record as Annex. 2.
3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed reply to the said application that he has no objection if Vijay Singh Jhala is arrayed as defendant.
4. Another application was moved by defendant No. 2 further under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151, CPC for impleading M/s. Srinath Investments as party. The said application is placed on record as Annex. 4. The said application was moved through his power of attorney Avanti Jesani.
5. Upon both the applications, initially the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.10.1987 impleaded Vijay Singh Jhala and M/s. Srinath Investments as defendants No. 6 and 7 and amended cause-title was filed. Certified copy of order dated 12.10.1987, whereby, Vijay Singh Jhala and M/s. Srinath Investments are impleaded as party, placed on record as Annex. 6.
6. It is worthwhile to mention here that after passing order dated 12.10.1987 for impleading Vijay Singh and M/s. Srinath Investments, an application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC was filed by the plaintiff for seeking amendment of the plaint and said application was allowed for amendment by the trial Court vide order dated 28.4.1991; and, thereafter, plaintiff-petitioner amended para 27 of the plaint and certain pleadings were made in respect of newly added defendants.
7. After amending the suit, newly added defendants moved an application on 26.9.1989 under Order VII Rule 11(A), read with Order XIII Rule 3A CPC and Section 151, CPC and prayed that no relief has been prayed for against the newly added defendants, therefore, they have got no concern with the suit and the suit is not maintainable against them. It is prayed by defendants No. 6 and 7 that they may be deleted from the array of defendants and suit may be dismissed against them with cost.
8. Aforesaid application filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 was subsequently withdrawn with permission of the Court and the learned trial Court, upon request made for withdrawal, passed order to reject the application on 20.4.1992 which is placed on record as Annex. 11.
9. After impleading respondents No. 6 and 7, written-statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 M/s. Shreenath Investments and, in the written statement, it has taken contradictory and inconsistent plea and pleaded that property inquestion was agreed to be sold in lieu of Rs. 8,50,000/- and trustee Ram Prasad Ladha was authorized to undertake proceedings and, accordingly, Ram Prasad Ladha moved Assistant Commissioner, Deosthan Department. Thereafter, in view of pleadings in para 27, it was pleaded that sale-agreement was executed and, in pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon was paid to the trust and, accordingly, application was moved to the Assistant Commissioner on 8.9.1983, upon which, the Assistant Commissioner, Deosthan Department accorded its approval on 17.1.1984.
10. In the written-statement, M/s. Shreenath Investment has taken stand that defendant No. 6 Vijay Singh Jhala is in possession of the plot being power of attorney. M/s. Shreenath Investments has narrated so many other facts with regard to electricity connection and
