Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 9 (RAJ)

Syed Wazir Ali v. Syed Wali

1968-01-18

JAGAT NARAYAN

body1968
JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These are connected revision applications in which the same question arises namely, whether the Dargah Committee, Ajmer has been rightly impleaded by the trial court in the two suits out of which these two revision applications arise. 2. Civil Revision No.381 of 1963 arises out of a suit for injunction brought by two Syedzada Khadims against three Syedzada Khadims. These Khadims are entitled to the custody of the keys in their fixed turns by rotation. The plaintiffs and the defendants are amongst he custodians of the keys of the room in which the tomb of Hazrat Khawaja Sahib Moin Uddin Chishti is situated. It is the case of both these parties that they have a right to perform the attendant services, and to receive and enjoy the income accruing therefrom on certain fixed Saturdays. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants interfere with the right of the plaintiffs by not delivering the keys to them when their turn comes and by appropriating the income to which they are entitled. The Dargah Committee filed an application in the above suit for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants are entitled to enjoy any part of the income accruing from the tomb of Hazrat Khawaja Sahib and the Dargah Committee alone is entitled to it by virtue of secs.2 (d) (v) and 14(1) of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act, 1955. 3. Civil Revision No. 94 of 1964 arises out of a suit instituted by a registered society of Syedzada Khadims, and the Receiver appointed by the Civil Judge, in Civil Suit No. 352 of 1944, instituted by one set of Syedzada Khadims against another set. The defendants to the suit are four bawarchis and two thekedars who had taken the theka for the months of January, & December, 1960, from the Receiver. The dispute between the parties is as to whether the Syedzada Khadims are entitled to receive 10 Np. coins put into two degs in the Dargah, or the bawarchis. 4. The Dargah Committee filed an application in this suit also for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that none of the parties to the suit is entitled to the income from the degs, but that it alone is entitled to it under secs.2 (d) (v) and 14(1) of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act, 1955. 5. 4. The Dargah Committee filed an application in this suit also for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that none of the parties to the suit is entitled to the income from the degs, but that it alone is entitled to it under secs.2 (d) (v) and 14(1) of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act, 1955. 5. Both the above applications have been allowed by the learned Munsiff before whom the suits are pending. 6. The contention of the applicants in these revision applications is that the dispute which the Dargah Committee wishes to raise is beyond the scope of the suits and the orders impleading it as defendant in the two suits are therefore improper. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this contention is correct. Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. runs, as follows:— "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." The above rule no doubt gives a wide discretion to the Court to implead a party as a defendant, but this discretion has to be exercised in accordance with some well known principles. In Anion vs. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.(l), a note in the Annual Practice, 1955, at Page 232 is reproduced, which is as follows:— "Generally speaking, intervention can only be insisted upon in three classes of cases, namely: (A) In a representative action where the intervener is one of a class whom plaintiff claims to represent. The intervener may say, I deny that plaintiff represents me add me as a defendant... (B) Where the proprietary rights of the intervener are directly affected by the proceedings. (C) In actions claiming the specific performance of contracts where third persons have an interest in the question of the manner in which the contract should be performed." (A) and (C) can have no application to the present case. (B) Where the proprietary rights of the intervener are directly affected by the proceedings. (C) In actions claiming the specific performance of contracts where third persons have an interest in the question of the manner in which the contract should be performed." (A) and (C) can have no application to the present case. The case does not fall under (B) obviously because the result of the present suits cannot bind the Dargah Committee in any way or prejudice its rights. 8. The following observation made by the learned Judge in the above case may be quoted with profit:— "I do not, with deference to those who have thought otherwise, agree that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions, though it may incidentally have that effect. The court has other ways of doing that which are amply sufficient for the purpose—by order consolidation... ... ... ... ... The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action, and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party." 9. The dispute which the Dargah Committee wishes to raise in the present case is beyond the scope of the present suits. Both parties to both the suits agree that they are entitled to the income which is the subject matter of the two suits. If the Dargah Committee wishes to establish its claim to this income, it has a separate remedy by way of a suit to which it can implead as defendants all the Khadims, bawarchis and others who may at present be appropriating various incomes from offerings which the Dargah Committee claims to be its own property under the provisions of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act. 10. The Dargah Committee is of the opinion that the dispute which it wishes to raise by being impleaded as a defendant does not relate to any religious usage or custom, or to the performance of any religious office. As such, the provision of sec. 16 of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act will not be attracted and the only remedy of the Dargah Committee is to institute a suit in the civil court. 11. As such, the provision of sec. 16 of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act will not be attracted and the only remedy of the Dargah Committee is to institute a suit in the civil court. 11. The revision applications are accordingly allowed and the orders in the two suits impleading the Dargah Committee are set aside. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. 12. Let the records be returned to the trial court.