HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4762/2022

1.

Shantilal Kochar S/o Poonam Chand, Aged About 69

Years, Shop No.3, Ratan Deep Building, Kem Road,

Bikaner

2.

Yogesh S/o Anand Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Soni,

R/o Shop No.4, Ratan Deep Building, Kem Road, Bikaner

3.

Radhika Store Partnership Firm, Through Partners Nikhil

Dujari S/o Girdhar Lal Dujari, Aged About 37 Years, Shop

No.6, Ratan Deep Building, Kem Road, Bikaner

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Chairman, Nagar Nigam, Bikaner, Bikaner

2.

Dy. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Bikaner

3.

Manish Bhati S/o Mahfooj Bhati, B/c Musalman, R/o Ram

Rahim Sadak, Near Bhutto Chouraha, Bikaner

4.

Deepak Vyas S/o Krishna Kumar Vyas, B/c Brahmin, R/o

Shop No.5, Ratan Deep Building, Kem Road, Bikaner

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anil Vyas

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

18/05/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved

with the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Additional Civil

Judge No.3, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’)

whereby, the trial court while allowing the application under Order

1 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of respondent No.3 has directed the

petitioners and the respondent No.4 to implead the respondent

No.2 as defendant in the suit filed by them.

(2 of 3)

[CW-4762/2022]

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and the

respondent No.4 have filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC for

permanent injunction being aggrieved with the notice issued by

the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner to the owner of the building

situated at K.E.M. Road, Bikaner. The petitioners and the

respondent No.4 are the tenants in the said building and they

have challenged the notice issued to the owner of the building i.e.

the respondent No.3 and sought permanent injunction that the

respondent-Municipal Corporation be restrained from demolishing

the building in question treating the same as deteriorated.

During pendency of the said suit before the trial court, the

owner of the building i.e. the respondent No.3 namely Manish

Bhati has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a

prayer to implead him as party in the suit filed by the petitioners

and the respondent No.4. The trial court after taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed

the said application and directed the petitioners and the

respondent No.4 to implead the owner of the building i.e.

respondent No.3 as defendant in the suit while holding that

without impleading him as defendant, no effective order can be

passed in the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

trial court has grossly erred in allowing the application filed on

behalf of the respondent No.3 as the petitioners and the

respondent No.4 have not prayed for any relief against the owner

of the building. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

submitted that while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule

10 CPC, the trial court has also not directed the plaintiff to amend

the plaint.

(3 of 3)

[CW-4762/2022]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; perused the

impugned order and scrutinized the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the notice for demolishing the

building is issued in the name of owner of the building i.e.

respondent No.3. The petitioners and the respondent No.4 have

filed the suit for permanent injunction challenging the validity of

the said notice by way of filing a suit without impleading the

owner of the building as defendant.

Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any

illegality in the observation made by the trial court that for the

purpose of deciding a suit, presence of owner of the building is

necessary. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioners to