Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20758/2017 Pradeep Kumar Girdhar S/o Shri Prakash Nath Girdhar, Age 71 years, Resident Of House No. 256, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Owner Shop No. 67, Bapu Bazar, Jaipur)
----Petitioner-Non-Applicant Versus
1. Smt. Jyoti Sharma W/o Late Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Age-26, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
2. Harish S/o Late Shri Sunil Sharma, Age 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Jyoti Sharma, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
3. Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, Age
53 years, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
4. Vimla Devi Wife Of Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Age 51 years, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
5. Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar, Age 29 years, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
6. Satish Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar, Age 31 years, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
7. Suman D/o Mahesh Kumar, Age 34 years, Resident Of House No. 1079, Unioaron Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur
8. Nagar Nigam Jaipur through Chief Executive Officer, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
9. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Managing Director, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Mr. Rohit Tuteja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhargava HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
15/12/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed additional affidavit pointed out that due to inadvertence, certain performa- respondents could not be added as party respondents in the present writ petition. Along with the additional affidavit, amended cause title also has been filed.
Considering the additional affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the amended cause title is taken on record.
Heard on the application No.2/2022 for dispensing with the service upon performa-respondent Nos. 8 & 9.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Service upon the performa- respondent Nos. 8 & 9 stands dispensed.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-non-
applicant challenging the order dated 14.10.2017, whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-non-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Sh. Sumit Bhatia as -non-
applicant in the application was dismissed by the trial Court.
The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants No. 1 to 7 filed an application seeking compensation under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, on account of death of Sh. Sunil Kumar. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application for impleading Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited as party in the proceedings. Thereafter again, the petitioner filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Sh. Sumit Bhatia as non-applicant in the proceedings on the ground that shop of the petitioner as well as of Sh. Sumit Bhatia are situated adjoiningly and between their shops stairs are situated for going at first floor, where the deceased- Sunil Kumar died due to electrocution and he was also equally negligent for the said accident. The application filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was dismissed on
14.10.2017.
Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sh. Sumit Bhatia is the necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings as his shop is situated adjoining to the shop of the petitioner and between the two shops, stairs are situated for going at first floor where Sh. Sunil Kumar died due to electrocution, therefore, he is necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings. Counsel further submits that in the criminal case, the learned trial Court with regard to this accident, observed about negligence of Sh.
Sumit Bhatia.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-
applicants has opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that according to the issue framed by the learned trial Court, the claimant- respondents have to prove their case with regard to negligence of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, who supplied the electricity to the petitioner and the respondents No. 1 to 7 has already been impleaded as party to the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:
Firstly, the learned trial Court has framed issue No.1 as to whether the petitioner-non-applicant is negligent in not maintaining the electric wires properly on account of which, Sh. Sunil Kumar died, this issue has to be proved by the applicants- respondents. Secondly, the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited has already been impleaded as party defendant in the proceedings and lastly, in my considered view, the neighbour of the petitioner Sh. Sumit Bhatia is neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings.
In that view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition is d
