Advocates:
['HEMRAJ GAUR R JAIN', '', 'H V NANDWANA', 'DR SOHAN LAL SHARMA', '', 'R S BHARDWAJ']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3345/2013

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Srikishan, By Caste Jat, aged about

35 years, R/o Vill. Jatwara, Teh. Bassi Distt. Jaipur Raj.

Defendant--Petitioner

Versus

1.

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gram Nayayalaya,

Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj).

2.

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jatwara, Teh. Bassi,

Distt. Jaipur (Raj).

Performa Respondents

3.

Ghasilal S/o Hardev, By Caste Jat, R/o Vill. Jatwara,

Teh. Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj).

Plaintiffs-Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. H. V. Nandwana, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R. S. Bhardwaj, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

Reserved on 26/04/2019

Pronounced on 22/05/2019

Reportable

1.

Defendant-Petitioner moved an application before the

learned trial court under Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with

Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he was impleaded as

defendant no.2 by the plaintiff-respondent in a case filed by

the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent

injunction relating to the piece of land situated at village

Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. It was stated by the

respondent that he had applied for obtaining a Patta from the

Gram Panchayat in the year 1980. However, the same was

(2 of 9)

[CW-3345/2013]

not released in-spite of the assurance and process and a

decision was taken to release the Patta on 20/12/1997 and

the Patta was released on 07/03/1998 in favour of the

defendant-petitioner who was minor.

2.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against

the defendant-petitioner through his father Shri Kishan Jat

and in the circumstances, the defendant-petitioner filed the

aforesaid application Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with

Section 151 CPC on 15/06/2009 after attaining the age of

majority within three years thereto requesting for being

impleaded as a defendant in person and to give him an

opportunity of hearing independently. It was his submission

that while impleading the defendant-petitioner as the

defendant no.2, no permission was sought from the Court for

appointment of the guardian or appointing of the next friend.

3.

Another application was moved by the defendant-

petitioner under Order 32 Rule 3A(2) read with Section 151

CPC stating that while he was minor, his father was shown by

the plaintiff-respondent as his guardian and the suit was filed

against him wherein gross negligence was shown by his

guardian and the written statement was not filed and the

right of filing the written statement was closed by the

learned trial court and he was, therefore, prevented from

filing written statement to the plaint. As the plaint relates to

the ownership and title of the immovable property for which

a Patta has been issued in favour of the defendant-petitioner,

his rights have been seriously affected and he cannot be held

responsible for the negligence of the guardian who was not

appointed with prior permission of the trial court. As he has

(3 of 9)

[CW-3345/2013]

become an independent party to the suit on 09/12/2012, he

should be allowed to file his written statement and contest

the case.

4.

A reply to the aforesaid application was filed wherein it

was informed that the suit was filed in the year 1999 against

the defendant no.2-petitioner through his natural guardian

(father) and the defendant’s father had conducted all the

proceedings as a natural guardian not only before the trial

court but had also filed proceedings before the High Court

and the defendant-petitioner cannot take advantage again

with regard to the same proceedings for which his guardian

had already taken up the matter all the way upto the High

Court.

5.

After providing hearing to the parties, the learned trial

court rejected the application vide order impugned dated

17/01/2013 against which the present writ petition has been

filed by the defendant-petit