Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal vs Jetha @ Naina on 25 March, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 9352/2016
Mohan Lal S/o Shri Punji @ Bhanwar Lal, Aged about 67 years,
B/c Mali, R/o Bera Imratiya, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Jetha @ Naina S/o Kanaram B/c Gehlot Mali, R/o Gali No. 8, Bera
Imratiya, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MS Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 25/03/2019 The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(I) order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure-1) and order dated 17.7.2015 (Annexure: 3) passed by the learned Judge Jodhpur Zila, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) order dated 18.3.2016 (Annexure:-4) passed by the learned Additional Zila Judge, Zila Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(iii) or pass any other order or direciton, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the interest of justice. "
The petitioner has a pattasuda house at Mahamandir Imraitya Bera, Jodhpur and claimed possession for last 45 years. (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:48:11 AM)
(2 of 3) [CW-9352/2016] A suit has been filed in the year 2007 to redress grievance of disturbance in the peaceful possession by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant No. 1 & 2 in the suit had already made relinquish deed/release deed in favour of the present respondent and therefore were not contesting the suit. The defendant No. 1 Shri Kesuram had died and the fact of his death was brought on record by his counsel, but names of the LRs were not furnished because he had already relinquished his claim over the said property in faovur of the present respondent. The court rejected the application seeking names of LRs of the defendant No. 1 vide order dated 21.12.2013. The petitioner however filed applications on 26.5.2014 and 27.5.2014 under Order 22 Rule 4 of Sub-rule 4 read with Rule 9 seeking exemption to implead LRs of defendant No. 1 &2 as there are not contesting party and were also rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited submission before this Court that the impugned order may not affect the petitioner to continue his suit against the present respondent. Learned counsel submits that the defendant No. 1 & 2 had relinquished/released their claim in favour of the present respondent and carrying on prosecution of the suit against the defendants No. 1 &2 or LRs was not called for, hence, impugned order is justified.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the writ petition is dismissed as the learned court below has rightly held that the impleadment of the LRs of defendant No. 1 & 2 was of no consequence in light of the fact that they have no (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:48:11 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-9352/2016] claim over the property in question. With consent of the parties, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to carry on his redressal and his rights against the present respondents in whose favour the defendant No. 1 & 2 have relinquished/released the property.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J ns. 175-/-
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 03:48:11 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)