IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1656 of 2024 (ANIL VAIDYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Appearance:

(BY SHRI UJJAWAL VAIDYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS)

(BY SHRI A.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)

(MS. SANJANA SAHANI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

ORDER

Assailing the order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P/11) allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioners that they are owners of the land bearing Khasra No.471 (new) Khasra No.156/3 (old). The revenue cases were initiated regarding some revenue entries therefore, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was precisely filed against the State. A civil suit was ordered to be recorded in the name of the State under the head of the road restoring back the position existing in the year 1914-15. The defendant/State has filed a written statement denying the averments of the plaint. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was filed in the civil suit on the ground that they are the interested parties to the proceedings as they were parties before the revenue authorities. Miscellaneous petition was filed in the earlier round challenging the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI dated 04.02.2020 whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed and disposed off. The petitioners have made a statement before the writ court that they will not seek any declaration with respect to the order passed by the revenue authorities therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners to the aforesaid extent was deleted and thereafter, the application filed by the respondent No.2 was rejected. However, liberty was extended to the respondent No.2 to move a fresh application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to be decided afresh by the learned trial court. In pursuance to the same, the application has been filed. The learned trial court has allowed the application without considering the fact that from the relief clause, the relief with respect to declaration based upon the revenue entries were deleted therefore, there was no occasion to implead the respondents as the party to the proceedings.

3. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ishar Singh Vs. Municipal Committee in Civil Revision No.952 of 1991 and in the case of Kailash and another Vs. Kaluram and others in Miscellaneous Petition No.4469 of 2022 decided on 06.12.2022 wherein on similar circumstances as the plaintiff is a dominus litis and the master of the suit therefore, he cannot be compelled to implead the respondents as party. He has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial court.

4. Per contra, counsels appearing for the respondents have supported Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI the impugned order stating supported the impugned order contending therein that the learned trial court has passed a detailed order after considering all the aspect of the matter. It is not in dispute that the proposed respondents were party to the proceedings before the revenue courts. They are claiming easementary rights over the property in question. It is the property of the Government for which the petitioners are making claim for declaration. The respondents are having a right to way since long from the aforesaid land therefore, they were having easementary rights. As they were parties before the revenue authorities, they were essential parties to the litigation before the trial court. The trial court has considered all the aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. Making them a party to the proceedings before the trial court will be taking a decision on merits in one litigation only. The