IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 2868 of 2025 BHURALAL AND OTHERS Versus SHIV PRASAD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kamal Nayan Airen, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2025 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ORDER With the consent, heard finally.

The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in RCSA No.34/2020, whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.

02. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that Tehsildar, Depalpur issued notice to respondent No.1 stating that his house was constructed on encroached land of Survey No.584/2 and a direction was issued to remove the encroachment. In response to the said notice, respondent No.1 submitted certain documents such as registered sale deed bearing No.22/65 dated 15.02.1965 executed in favour of his father, proper tax receipts, water tax receipts and building permission in order to establish that they are the owner of the land over which the house is constructed. Thereafter, without considering the aforesaid documents, again direction was issued to remove such encroachment.

03. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent No.1 filed a suit i.e. RCS/A/34/2020 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of sale deed dated 15.02.1965 executed in favour of his father.

04. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of himself as one of the parties in civil suit which came to be rejected vide order dated 16.07.2022. Hence, present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court in unreasoned and non- speaking as the grounds raised by the petitioners have not been considered properly. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that in another civil suit filed by one Raufulla in respect of the same property, respondent No.1's application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed vide order dated 24.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the said civil suit, a decree was granted on 29.08.2005 as compromise took place in the Appellate Court and execution of the decree is still pending. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial Court has committed grave error of law by going into the issue of title at the stage of deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.

06. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Bihari Lal v/s Ramcharan (Civil Revision No.689 of 1982) decided on 15.12.1983. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Ashok S/o Babarao Patil v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022) & Full Bench of this Court in the case of Panna & Another v/s Jeewantlal & Another reported in 1976 M.P.L.J. 170. On such premises, a prayer has been made that the present miscellaneous petition be allowed.

0 6 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 /

plaintiff submits that earlier in the year 2022, the petitioners herein have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of himself as one of the parties to the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1 and the said application was rejected by the tr