Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Agrawal vs Ramveer Singh (Dau) on 2 December, 2015
WP-4320-2012
(DEEPAK AGRAWAL Vs RAMVEER SINGH (DAU))
02-12-2015
Mr. Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1, though served.
Mr. Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 11.5.2012 by which the trial Court has allowed the application preferred by respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is evident that the petitioner has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The claim in the suit is based on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land on the strength of the will executed in his favour and he is in possession of the same. However, defendant No.1 is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the aforesaid suit, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of will executed in his favour. The trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application vide impugned order dated 11.5.2012. It is well settled in law that if an addition of a party results in triangular fight, the same is not permissible in law. See: Akshaya Kumar Jain Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain, 1992(1) MPWN S.N.183 and Nandlal and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2014 (II) MPWN 64.
In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of his title and permanent injunction against respondent No.1. The decree, if any, passed in the aforesaid suit shall only bind respondent No.1. If respondent No.2 is allowed to be impleaded, the same would enlarge the scope of the suit and would result in triangular fight, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court. The impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. It is accordingly quashed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by Fax. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE