Madhya Pradesh High Court
Premier Oil Industries Jaora Thr. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 2nd OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2922 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
PREMIER OIL INDUSTRIES JAORA THR.
PROPRIETOR VISHAL EXPORT PVT.LTD.
KOLKATA THR. SURESH KUMAR JAJOO
DIRECTOR MANISHPURI INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. MINI RAVINDRAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH JAORA DIST. RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TEHSILDAR THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH TEHSIL OFFICE JAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. PRESIDENT SHRINAGAR GRAH NIRMAN THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SHRI NAGAR
GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA
MARYADIT BANNAKHEDA JAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO
2
3/STATE AND SHRI MOHAMMAD IQBAL ANWAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT No.4)
................................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 06.01.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.6-A/2017 by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaora, District- Ratlam whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.3/President, Shrinagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bannakheda, Jaora under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment in the civil suit as a party defendant has been allowed.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/M/s. Premier Oil Industries, Jaora has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No.226/1, ad-measuring 2.036 hectares situated at Village Bannakheda Tehsil- Jaora District Ratlam, on the ground that the aforesaid land has been purchased by the plaintiff in a public auction from MPFC and Sales Tax Department. In the aforesaid suit, an application has been filed by the respondent No.4/ Shri 3 Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bannakheda under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC contending that the land in question at Survey No.226/1 ad-measuring 2.036 hectares has been purchased by the respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 01.01.1985, and another adjoining piece of land was also purchased vide registered sale deed dated 14.08.1986. Relief sought in the aforesaid application reads as under:-
**vr% fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ v/;{k Jhuxj lgdkjh laLFkk e;kZfnr tks fd losZ dzekad 226@1 ,oa 226@3 dk LokfeRo/kkjh ,oa vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS vkSj laLFkk }kjk vkoafVr Hkw&[k.M ds /kkjdksa }kjk ml ij edku cukdj fuokl dj jgs gSA bl dkj.k izfroknh ds :i esa v/;{k Jhuxj x`gfuekZ.k lgdkjh laLFkk ek;kZfnr ¼cUuk[ksMk½ tkojk dks izfroknh ds :i esa mijksDr izdj.k esa lfEefyr fd;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djsaA** 4] The said application has been allowed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court holding that since the respondent No.4/applicant is also the owner of the land at Survey No.226/1, hence, it is also a necessary party.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned Judge of the Civil Court has erred in not appreciating the facts in their proper perspective as admittedly, the total area of Survey No.226/1 is 3.060 hectare, out of this area, the petitioner has purchased the land at Survey No.226/1, ad-measuring 2.036 hectares through a registered sale certificate dated 04.05.1976 whereas, the respondent No.4/applicant has purchased the part of the said land at Survey 4 No.226/1 ad-measuring 0.632 hectare and another land at Survey No.226/4, ad-measuring 0.253 hectare whereas, in the second sale deed . Thus, it is submitted that when the plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of the Survey No.226/1 ad-measuring 2.036 hectare, which is the larger part of the original Survey No.226/1, ad-measuring 3.060 hectares, and the remaining two parts namely, 0.632 and 0.253 hectares admittedly belonged to the defendant on which the plaintiff has no claim and thus the respondent No.4 is not a necessary party for the just and proper disposal of the suit. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC be rejected.
6] The petition is opposed by the respondent No.4. Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, Counsel for the respondent No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to a document dated 11.04.1996, issued by the Additional Tehsildar/Commercial Tax Officer stating that the sales certificate is modified on 05.12.1995, that the sold land bears Survey No.224, ad-measuring 1.050 hectare. Thus, it is submitted that the land in question as claimed by the plaintiff, does not belong to them even if they have sale certificate in their favour, as the sale certificate has already been modified by the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Tehsildar/Commercial Tax Officer. However, on a query made by this Court, counsel has fairly admitted that the aforesaid document was not filed in the 5 Trial Court along with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
7] Counsel for the State has submitted that it is a proforma respondents only and the appropriate orders may be passed. 8] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that so far as the application filed by the respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is concerned, the relief of which has been reproduced above, clearly states that the respondent No.4 is claiming the entire Survey No.226/1 and 226/3 as their own, however, the documents which are placed on record clearly reveals that the defendant is the owner of only a part of the aforesaid land at Survey No.226/1, the total area of which is 3.060 hectare, out of which the petitioner/plaintiff has purchased 2.036 hectares, thus, it clearly indicates that the plaintiff is not encroaching upon any of the rights of the respondent No.4, who owns a different piece of land and in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.4 is not a necessary party to contest the suit and no purpose would be served to add respondent No.4 in the aforesaid suit, which is already delayed by many years as the suit itself was filed in the year 2016, and as informed by the counsel for the petitioner, only the plaintiff's examination-in-chief has been recorded until now.6
10] In such circumstances, the petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2018 is set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.4 is hereby rejected. The learned Judge of the Trial Court is requested to expedite the matter.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar BAHAR CHAWLA 2023.03.04 13:28:58 +05'30'