Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goodwin vs Church Of North India Trust Association ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:33265
1 MP-5098-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 5098 of 2024
GOODWIN AND OTHERS
Versus
CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ADVERD MAGAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aayush Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.377A/2022 by the Principal District Judge, District Ratlam whereby their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as parties to the suit has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 have instituted an action before the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property and causing any demolition/damage to the same which is of their ownership.
3. The plaintiffs have contended that they are the owners of the suit property and that the defendants/respondents 4 to 6 who are the State of M.P. and its authorities do not have any title to the same but are attempting to illegally take possession of the suit property and forcibly dispossess them Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 25-11-2024 17:59:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:33265 2 MP-5098-2024 therefrom and interfere with their possession over the same.
4. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was preferred by the applicants before the trial Court on the ground that they are tenants in the suit property and since plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected they can be forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. They had instituted various writ petitions before this Court in which it has been observed that they cannot be forcibly dispossessed from the suit property without following the due process of law. Since they are in possession of the suit property they are necessary parties hence deserve to be impleaded.
5. The application was contested by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by observing that the suit is based upon title claimed by the plaintiffs whereas the applicants are admittedly tenants in the suit property and are not claiming any title therein. No proceedings are being taken against them for their eviction hence they do not have any cause for impleadment. The plaintiffs are the dominus litis of their case and have not sought for any relief against the applicants hence they cannot be directed to be impleaded as parties against the wishes of the plaintiffs.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners and have perused the record.
7. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants on the basis of their title alleging that they are being sought to be forcibly dispossessed from the suit property. Admittedly the applicants are tenants in Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 25-11-2024 17:59:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:33265 3 MP-5098-2024 the suit property and are not claiming title to the same. The question to be determined in the suit is whether plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and are entitled for issuance of permanent injunction in their favour. No relief has been sought for by the plaintiffs against the applicants. The applicants have mere expressed their apprehension that they may be forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. No allegation whatsoever has been levelled by them against the plaintiffs of them threatening to dispossess them. The apprehension of the applicants is thus against the defendants and not plaintiffs. There is no issue involved in the suit as regards status of the applicants. The issue is in respect of title of plaintiffs and admittedly applicants are their tenants hence at best can claim through them and not in individual capacity. It is well settled that in a suit based upon title between persons claiming title thereto any person who claims to be a tenant in the property is not a necessary party to the same.
8. In W.P. No.25978/2022 Godwin V/s. State of M.P. and Others and other connected petitions decided by order dated 20.02.2024 the issue was as regards the State authorities initiating action against the present applicants for their dispossession from the suit property. Those proceedings were set aside and it was held that title to the property is already in dispute in the present civil suit in which the same shall be decided. The direction was issued to the Civil Court to decide the title which would obviously be between plaintiffs and defendants. No title of the applicants is required to be decided therein since they have not claimed any title.
9. Moreover in the order in the writ petitions itself it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 25-11-2024 17:59:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:33265 4 MP-5098-2024 observed that the State Government shall be at liberty to initiate eviction proceedings as per law after decision of the civil suit. Thus, possession of the applicants has been protected by this Court till pendency of the present suit hence there is no basis for the applicants to apprehend that their possession would be threatened by the defendants during pendency of the suit. Their possession having been protected during pendency of the suit and they not claiming any title to the suit property are neither necessary nor even proper parties to the suit as has rightly been held by the trial Court.
10. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC preferred by the applicants. Consequently, affirming the impugned order the petition is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 25-11-2024 17:59:47