Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Narmada Devi And Anr vs Civil Judge (J D ) And Ors on 11 April, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4816/2011 SMT. SUNDARI Vs. SUA LAL & ORS. & (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9818/2010 NARMADA DEVI & ANR. Vs. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS), CHOMU, DISTRICT JAIPUR & ORS. DATE: 11.04.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.L. Mandhana and Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Counsel with Mr. N.C. Sharma, for the respondents.
**** At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petitions are being disposed off finally.
2. Both the writ petitions arise out of one suit, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent Sua Lal filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of disputed land. During pendency of suit, applicants Narmada Devi and Lada Devi, daughter of Late Shri Ruda Ram, filed an application to implead them as parties. Learned trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 15.07.2010, which is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9818/2010.
4. Applicant Smt. Sundari D/o Late Shri Ruda Ram also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead her as party in the suit, but her application was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.03.2011, which is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4816/2011.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that applicants were also co-sharer in the disputed land and the present suit being a suit for declaration, in addition to permanent injunction, they were necessary parties, but the trial Court committed an illegality in rejecting their applications to implead them as parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, therefore, impugned orders passed by the trial Court may be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for plaintiff/ respondent submitted that since no relief was sought against present applicants and he filed the suit only against those persons, who were interfering in the possession of plaintiff, therefore, the trial Court was right in rejecting their applications.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders.
8. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9818/2010, petitioners have placed on record a copy of 'Jamabandi' as Annexure-4 and a bare perusal of the same shows that all the three applicants have been shown as co-sharer/recorded tenant of the land, which is subject matter of the present suit. Since it is not a suit exclusively for permanent injunction, but it is for declaration also, in these circumstances, in my view, the trial Court committed an illegality in dismissing the applications of applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Applications filed by applicants should have been allowed and they should have been impleaded as parties, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, impugned orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside.
9. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside and both the applications filed by three applicants, namely, Narmada Devi, Lada Devi and Smt. Sundari, are allowed and they are impleaded as defendants in the suit.
10. Learned counsel for plaintiff/ respondent undertakes to file amended cause title/amended plaint within fourteen days in the trial Court.
11. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
12. In view of above, application Inward No.16240, dated 01.04.2011 filed by respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9818/2010 stands disposed off.
13. Learned counsel for plaintiff/ respondent submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2008 along with application for temporary injunction, but neither application has been decided despite direction of Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2010 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.99/2010, nor satisfactory progress has taken place in the suit also, therefore, suitable direction may be given to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit as well as T.I. application. Prayer appears to be reasonable, therefore, the same is allowed. The trial Court is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction within a month from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. The trial Court shall also make efforts to decide the suit, as early as possible, but not later than a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.
14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chomu, District Jaipur for compliance.
15. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected file.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.4357/2011 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4816/2011 SMT. SUNDARI Vs. SUA LAL & ORS.
DATE: 11.04.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.L. Mandhana, for the petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Counsel with Mr. N.C. Sharma, for the respondents.
**** Since the writ petition has been allowed, therefore, this stay application also stands disposed off.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC