Lalji Sharma vs Rajkumar Pandey on 19 December, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lalji Sharma vs Rajkumar Pandey on 19 December, 2022

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                              MISC. PETITION No. 1866 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           LALJI SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI HARNAM DAS, AGED
                           ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. DISTRICT
                           JUDGE 5, RISHI PARISAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    RAJKUMAR PANDEY S/O R.N. PANDEY, AGED
                                 ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE 36
                                 SURYA COLONY, KOTRA, SULTANABAD BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MUNICIPAL     CORPORATION      THROUGH
                                 COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                 OFFICE MATA MANDIR AVANTI SQUARE BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SMT.RAJSHREE PANDEY - ADVOCATE )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner/proposed party challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by 18th Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in civil suit RCS-A/677/2019 whereby application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner for his impleadment has been dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/20/2022 11:12:32 AM 2 is an open plot which is of common use of the residents of Rishi Parisar Colony, therefore, the plaintiff has interest in the disputed land, which the respondent 1/plaintiff wants to grab on the basis of alleged sale deed, on the basis of which, he has instituted the suit in question, whereas the property covered by the sale deed is different from the suit property. He further submits that learned Court below has without considering the aforesaid aspect and without considering the real dispute involved between the parties erred in dismissing the application.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 1 submits that the petitioner has no locus or right over the land in question and the dispute raised by the petitioner herein cannot be decided in the pending civil suit, and he is neither necessary nor proper party. She further submits that effective decree can be passed even in his absence. With these submissions, she prays for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From bare perusal of the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is claiming the suit property as the open land available for common use of the residents of Rishi Parisar Colony, whereas, the plaintiff/respondent 1 has instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction claiming himself to be exclusive owner and in possession only against the respondent- Municipal Corporation, Bhopal.

6. In my considered opinion, the right claimed by the petitioner by way of application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC cannot be decided in the civil suit and it is also well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be forced to join any other person as a party to the suit against his wishes. As such, no error Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/20/2022 11:12:32 AM 3 appears to have been committed by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order.

7. Resultantly, declining interference, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/20/2022 11:12:32 AM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court