Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Moses M Singh vs Executive Board Of Methodist&Ors; on 29 August, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.102/2016
In (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3492/2016)
Date: August 29, 2016.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mamoon Khalid, for the petitioner.
REPORTABLE Heard Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the review petition. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench of this court under order dated 3-6-2016 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.846/2016 has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this court by way of a review petition against the order dated 9-5-2016 passed by this court.
Mr. Agrawal submitted that instead of directing impleadment of the vendee under sale deed dated 30-3-2007, this court in its order dated 9-5-2016 should have admitted the writ petition and stayed the impugned order dated 20- 1-2016 passed by the Board of Revenue for having acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal before it on the one hand, yet directing status quo qua the property which was the subject matter of the appeal on the other hand. Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010)9 SCC 437], where the Apex Court has held that no court can be used as a forum for interim relief where it has no jurisdiction to address the dispute laid before it.
Heard. Considered.
2On the matter first coming up before this court on 9-5-2016, the only direction issued was that the vendee of the suit property in dispute be impleaded as a proforma party to the writ petition, as this court was of the view that the status of the property in dispute in the writ petition subsequent to its conveyance under a registered sale deed following the order dated 30-3-2007 by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was very relevant to get a full grip of the matter and eschew addressing the fundamental/ underlying dispute only partially. The matter of legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Board on 20-1-2016 is still under consideration before this court. The order dated 9-5-2016 passed by this court has been passed in its discretion based on the effort to go to the root of the dispute agitated in the writ petition. It is the obligation of this court exercising equitable extraordinary jurisdiction to reduce litigation. The direction for impleadment of the vendee of suit property was passed to facilitate this court to get a wholistic view and the correct perspective of the case such as to appreciate the underlying dispute agitated in the writ petition rather than be confined only the superficial legal aspect which even if decided would have left the real dispute festering in one court or the other.
It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked as a 3 matter of right. From this well settled principle, it follows that the court can impose conditions for the exercise of such jurisdiction. To implead a party in the writ petition can be such a condition for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction. Even a court of original civil jurisdiction, has in law been conferred the discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead a party in a suit before it on an application or otherwise, whose presence before it may enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all questions before it. No prejudice can be caused to the plaintiff/ petitioner from the exercise of such discretion. The Apex Court in the case of Kazi Mohammad Muzzamil Vs. State of Karnataka [(2010)8 SCC 155] has held that courts should issue directions for the removal of the causes of litigation: the maxim BONI JUDIS EST CAUSU LITIUM DIRIMERE was referred to approvingly. Direction for impleadment of a party in the discretion of the court when it appears desirable to fully understand and shorten the dispute and resultant litigation would be within the four corners of the maxim relied upon by the Supreme Court.
It is odd that the petitioner is aggrieved of the direction of this court passed on 9-5-2016. There is no legal injury to the petitioner from said direction. The order dated 9-5-2016 for impleadment of the vendee, of the property in dispute following the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order 4 dated 30-3-2007, as proforma respondent in writ petition cannot by any stretch of imagination, particularly in the facts of the case, be said to prejudice the petitioner. And in any event the order dated 9-5-2016 passed by this court suffers from no ex facie patent illegality to warrant the review petition being maintained.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to entertain the review petition--the order dated 3-6-2016 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench notwithstanding merely records that "it is always open" for a review petition to be filed. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench does not address the merits of the petitioner's case for review. And as recorded hereinabove the review petition is de hors legally permissible grounds, sans any legal injury and a misuse of the judicial process. It is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of ninety days from today, failing which the writ petition itself shall stand dismissed without reference to this court for non compliance with the order of this court.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 5 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.