Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mool Chand vs Geeta Devi on 20 February, 2020
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 3) [CW-2261/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261/2020
Mool Chand S/o Sh. Kachromal, Aged About 75 Years, B/c
Maheshwary, R/o Nehru Nagar, Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Geeta Devi W/o Late Sh. Kailash Chandak, R/o Nehru
Nagar, Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
2. Bavesh S/o Late Sh. Kailash Chandak, R/o Nehru Nagar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
3. Mayur S/o Late Sh. Kailash Chandak, R/o Nehru Nagar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
4. Smt. Kalawati W/o Sh. Mool Chand, R/o Nehru Nagar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 20/02/2020 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, has been rejected.
The respondents No. 1 to 3 plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of a house property. The suit was filed against mother-in-law of respondents No.1 with the submissions that the plaintiffs had half share in the suit property. The suit remained pending for over 11 years; whereafter the present application was filed by the petitioner, husband of the sole-defendant seeking impleadment as (Downloaded on 20/02/2020 at 09:14:43 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-2261/2020] party-defendant to the suit with the submissions that the property in question belongs to him and that the defendant-Kalawati and his son Kailash were Benami owners.
The application was contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court came to the conclusion that the matter was fixed for final arguments; as the same was 11 years old and apparently the application has been filed for delaying the proceedings; the applicant is well aware of the pending suit and based on the said determination, rejected the application with a cost of Rs.1,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the sale-deed (Annex.-1) that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner in name of wife and son and, therefore, he was a necessary party to the suit and, therefore, the rejection of the application was not justified.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner and the defendant in the suit were prepared to settle the issue with the plaintiffs, however, the plaintiffs were adamant in proceedings with the suit.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
The facts are not in dispute, wherein the suit is pending since the year 2008 and the petitioner being husband of the sole- defendant is well aware of the pending proceedings and the stand, which has been taken in the written statement is similar to what is being sought to be contended by the petitioner. Despite the suit remaining pending for 11 years, no effort was made by the petitioner to get impleaded as party-defendant and when the (Downloaded on 20/02/2020 at 09:14:43 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-2261/2020] matter was fixed for final arguments by the trial court after 11 long years of trial, the application has been filed.
The consequence of accepting the application is to put the clock back and take back the suit to the initial stage, whereby the petitioner would be filing his written statement, whereafter additional issue would be framed and evidence would be led and, which will likely to take another 11 years' time, which cannot be permitted. The finding recorded by the trial court in rejecting the application, cannot be faulted.
Insofar as the plea regarding the petitioner and the defendant being ready to settle the issue mutually is concerned, the said aspect is always open for the parties to be settle the dispute before the trial court and for that matter, no order can be passed by this Court.
In view thereof, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 317-PKS/-
(Downloaded on 20/02/2020 at 09:14:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)