Allahabad High Court
Aniruddha Pal Singh vs Gram Sabha Awagarh , Etah And Another on 24 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7515 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aniruddha Pal Singh Respondent :- Gram Sabha Awagarh , Etah And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Manu Singh,Anshu Chaudhary Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge-IX, Etah in Revision No.09 of 2018 (Khadgendra Pal Singh Vs. Raja Aniruddha Pal Singh and another), whereby he has allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court.
Facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit No.439 of 2013 (Raja Aniruddha Pal Singh Vs. Gram Sabha, Awagarh) for permanent injunction against the Gaon Sabha. In the said suit, the respondent no.2 filed an application for impleadment claiming himself to be a co-owner of the property in dispute. Initially the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution and the revision against the same was also dismissed. Since the said application was not decided on merits, hence a fresh application for impleadment was filed. The Trial Court by its order dated 17.01.2018, rejected the said application primarily on the ground that the same is the second application and, as such, the same is not maintainable. The Trial Court also made an observation that since the suit is of injunction, hence the same would also not impact any of the rights of the applicant-respondent no.2. Against the said order, a revision was filed which is now remanded back by the impugned order by the learned Additional District Judge-IX, Etah. The learned Additional District Judge-IX, Etah, has held that since the first application was not decided on merits, the principle of res judicata would not apply and therefore the application is maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court while rejecting the application for impleadment also found that the suit is for injunction and any order passed in the suit would not impact the respondent no.2-applicant, as he is not a party to the suit. The said finding is not disturbed by the revisional Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has also referred to the judgments in the cases of; Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others; 2022 Supreme (SC) 919, Luis Roberto Vaz Vs. Roque Silvestre Vaz; 1987 Law Suit (Bom) 43 and Kanti Arora: O.P.Khaitan (HUF) Vs. Digjam Ltd; 2022 Law Suit (Del) 1807.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Trial Court could not have refused impleadment of a person merely by observing that by not impleading the said party its rights could not be impacted. The application is required to be decided after taking into consideration the claim of the person seeking impleadment. The Trial Court was required to see as to whether as the co-owner the applicant is required to be impleaded or not. The law referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is on the issue that plaintiff is master of the suit and it is his choice as to whom he desires to implead. No doubt, the said law is settled by the Supreme Court but it is the duty of the Court to implead all the necessary parties in the suit and such a right still vests in the Court.
In the present case, the revisional Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court to look all the aspects of the matter and pass a fresh order. It is not disputed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court was required to hear the matter on merits and application could not have been dismissed on the ground that earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, admittedly, the Civil Suit No.439 of 2013 (Raja Aniruddha Pal Singh Vs. Gram Sabha, Awagarh), is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah since 2013. This Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the court below to maintain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old.
In view of orders already issued on administrative side, the Trial Court is expected to decide the aforesaid suit which is pending before it expeditiously without any further delay. The court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment including the ground of strikes of the lawyers. The parties shall fully cooperate in early disposal of the case.
In view of aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.) .
Order Date :- 24.11.2022 Arjun/-