Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Satguru Premises Pvt Ltd vs Babu Lal Meena And Ors on 13 November, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2409/2008)
M/s. Satguru Premises Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Satish Tambi s/o Chhagan Lal, aged 51
years, by caste Mahajan, registered office at Tambi Tower, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. Babu Lal Meena s/o Hardev Meena, r/o Meethawala Kuan, Dausa.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial & Development Corporation Ltd., through the Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Sr. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial & Development Corporation Ltd.,
(RIICO) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
4. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd. 646A, Road No.36, Hitech City Road Jublee Hill,
Hyderabad Hallbase Camp, Navodaya Vidhyalaya ke Samne, National Highway, Dausa
through the Manager.
5. National Highway Authority of India, Jal & Ground Level Transport Ministry, Road
Transport & Rajmarg Department, New Delhi, through the Secretary.
6. Rajasthan State Government through the District Collector Dausa.
7. Bharat Sangh, through the Secretary, Central Government, New Delhi.
--- Respondents
Date of Order: November 13, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. R.S. Mehta, for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhay Jain, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Vikas Soni with
Mr. Dhurv Agarwal for respondents No.5 and 7.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner company (hereafter `the company') is aggrieved of the order dated 12-12-2007 passed by District Judge Dausa 2 dismissing its application under Order 1 Rules 10 CPC for impleadment in the suit for easementary right over khasra No.298 situated in village Jeerota Tehsil Dausa laid by the respondent- plaintiff Babu Lal (hereafter `the plaintiff').
The only ground on which the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the plaintiff's suit for declaration of easementary rights and permanent injunction was dismissed was that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner applicant (hereinafter `the applicant') had been allotted the suit land measuring 15.19 acres in khasra No.298 by the Rajasthan State Industrial & Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter `RIICO').
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent RIICO. The plaintiff Babulal was made exparte vide order dated 8- 11-2017 on presumption of service on him for reason of notice on the petition issued to him having been returned with the postman's note "refused to accept".
It is an admitted fact that the applicant was the highest bidder for a plot admeasuring 15.19 acres at an auction by RIICO held on 14-12-2005. On payment of full consideration amount of Rs.1.82 crores, a letter of allotment was issued to it on 3-1-2006 and 3 physical possession handed over on 5-5-2007. The plaintiff Babulal appears to have filed a suit against RIICO for declaration of easementary rights and permanent injunction qua land in khasra No.298 in village Jeerota Tehsil Dausa on 8-3-2007 stating that it was used by him to access his agricultural fields to which he had no other access. An order of interim injunction was passed by the trial court on the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC.
In the aforesaid circumstance, an application for impleadment was filed at the instance of the applicant in possession as an allottee of the suit land and aggrieved of the court's interim injunction operating to its detriment. RIICO in its reply to the petition has stated that though the letter of allotment to the applicant does not refer to khasra No.298, the land allotted is indeed so located.
The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the application for impleadment on the ground that the letter of allotment dated 3-1-2006 did not expressly state that it was in relation to khasra No.298 in village Jeerota Tehsil Dausa.
Having heard counsel for the parties, appearing before the court, I find that the applicant, an allottee of RIICO claiming title as also possession of land in khasra No.298--the suit property--not 4 only has a definite interest in the outcome of the plaintiff's suit for declaration of easementary rights and permanent injunction in respect of khasra No.298 village Jeerota Tehsil Dausa, but in fact is also a necessary party.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12-12-2007 is quashed and set aside. The applicant's application for impleadment in the plaintiff's suit for declaration of easementary rights and permanent injunction is allowed. It is directed that it be impleaded as a defendant in the plaintiff's suit.
Taking into consideration the fact that the underlying suit pertains to 2008, the trial court is directed to decide the suit itself expeditiously and in any event not later than eighteen months from the date next fixed before it. Adjournment in the matter shall not be granted without just cause, and when granted, they so be by a reasoned and speaking order on a proper application/s being filed. Non cooperation and absence of a party will entitle the trial court to proceed ex-parte.
The petition stands allowed accordingly.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 5 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.