Advocates:
['SANJAY NAHAR', 'DHANESH SARASWAT', '', 'CS KOTWANI']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14265 / 2013

PETITIONER:

Sunder Lal Hiran S/o Shri Sohan Lal Ji Hiran, Aged about 65 years,

R/o Hiran House Number 291, Purani Sham Ki Sabji Mandi,

Bhopalganj, Bhilwara.

----Plaintiff

Versus

RESPONDENTS:

1. M/S. Kanchi Construction Private Limited, Bhilwara through

Director Sumit Surana S/o Shri Surendra Singh Surana, R/o

Kashipuri, Bhilwara (Raj.)

-Defendant No.1

2. Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara

(Raj.)

-Performa Defendants

3. Ashish Chaturvedi S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi,

Director, M/s. Dynamic Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara, 1-7,

Basant Vihar, Bhilwara.

4. Gulab Chand Soni S/o Shri Banshi Lal Soni, Director Mukesh

Suitings Pvt Ltd., Gathila Kheda, Chittorgarh Road, Tehsil & District

Bhilwara.

Proposed Defendants

Connected With

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1623 / 2014

PETITIONER:

M/S. Kanchi Construction Private Limited, Bhilwara through its

Director, Sumit Surana S/o Shri Surendra Singh Surana, aged

about 40 years, Resident of Kashipuri, Bhilwara.

-Defendant No.1

(2 of 5)

[CW-14265/2013]

Versus

RESPONDENTS:

1. Surendra Lal Hiran S/o Shri Sohan Lal Hiran, resident of Hiran

House, House No.291, Purani Sham Ki Shabjimandi, Bhopalganj,

Bhilwara.

-Plaintiff

2. The Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Bhilwara, District

Bhilwara.

-Defendant No.2

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar

For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S Kotwani

Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

27/01/2017

1.

The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this writ petition

aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2013 whereby application filed

by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.

Aggrieved of the same order, the respondents-defendants have

moved a separate writ petition challenging the order vide which

the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 65 of

the Evidence Act was allowed.

2.

In writ petition No.14265/2013, it is argued by counsel

for the petitioner that in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed

filed in January, 2008, the interim relief was granted in favour of

the petitioner-plaintiff. The parties whom he wants to implead

(3 of 5)

[CW-14265/2013]

have come in possession of the property knowing the fact that the

lis was pending for cancellation of the sale deed.

3.

Counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 have opposed the

writ petition. Their contention is that they are not the necessary

parties in the suit as the relief claimed is for cancellation of the

sale deed and even if they have entered into the possession of the

property, it would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens.

4.

I have considered the contentions raised and have also

perused the impugned order.

5.

The main relief being for cancellation of sale deed

dated 17.01.2008, the present respondents No. 3 & 4 are not

necessary parties, as even if they are considered to be in

possession, they have stepped into the shoes of respondent No.1

and will be governed by doctrine of lis pendens. The court below

has therefore, not committed any illegality or irregularity in

rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The writ petition No.14265/2013 therefore,

deserves to be dismissed.

6.

As far as the writ petition No.1623/2014 is concerned,

the petitioner-defendant has challenged the impugned order on

the ground that the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act

are not applicable.

7.

It is contended that in the application filed by the

plaintiff, it was mentione