Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 441 (RAJ)

Vidhya Devi v. State

2000-04-10

N.P.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage. 2. The plaintiff by this revision seeks to assail the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pali dated 9.1.99 whereby the application of the present non-petitioner No. 4 (hereinafter to be referred to as applicant) purportedly filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed. 3. The matter is like this, that the applicant claimed in the application to the effect that the plaintiff was awarded land for installation of crusher as per the site plan, which allotment was registered with the Sub-Registrar alongwith the demarcation certificate of 14.8.98, but the plaintiff changed the location and attempted to illegally capture the land allotted to the applicant and, therefore, he sought to be impleaded as party-defendant. 4. The plaintiff contested this application on the ground that it was on 14.8.98, that the applicant in collusion with the revenue authorities got a lease deed executed and registered which is illegal and bad. It was also contended that the plaintiff has been allotted land by the State Government at which time there was no possession of the applicant. The State Government contended before the learned trial court that the plaintiff has changed the location of the land allotted, and that the land now in possession of the plaintiff has been allotted to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant be impleaded as party. The learned trial court after considering various judgment cited before it came to the conclusion that the applicant is a person having interest in the suit property and, therefore, ordered him to be added as party defendant. 5. Assailing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the plaintiff had filed the suit way back on 30th July, 1997 and it is during the pendency of the suit that on 14.8.98, the applicant has been granted lease for mining purposes with respect to the land allotted to the to plaintiff. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be said to be either necessary party nor can be said to be a proper party. It was also contended that the plaintiff dominus litus and cannot be compelled to litigate against the applicant, and, therefore, also the impugned order also is bad. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be said to be either necessary party nor can be said to be a proper party. It was also contended that the plaintiff dominus litus and cannot be compelled to litigate against the applicant, and, therefore, also the impugned order also is bad. Reliance was placed on AIR 1970 (Raj.) 167 , AIR 1975 (SC) 2151 , AIR 1976 Goa 58 and AIR 1989 Orissa 148. 6. Replying the contentions, learned counsel for the applicant (non-petitioner No. 4) contended that the matter may not be covered by O.1 R.10 but then it is covered by O.22 R.10 and supporting the impugned order, it was submitted that he has been rightly impleaded as party defendant. 7. Having considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that taking the facts of the case from any stand point whatever, the impleadment of the applicant (non-petitioner No. 4) cannot be said to be bad. 8. If it were to be taken that the plaintiff is continuing in possession on the land which was initially allotted to her and for that very land during pendency of the suit, a mining lease has been granted to the applicant, then in that event in my opinion. the matter would be covered by Order 22 Rule 10 as it would be a case of assignment of part of the ownership rights of the existing defendants in favour of the applicant during the pendency of the suit, with the result that with respect to such part of the rights, the transferee may continue to defend the suit with the leave of the court, and for whatever are the rest of the rights in the property, the existing defendants is continue to defend the suit. If the stand taken by the applicant be taken to be correct namely that the plaintiff has shifted his place from the one which was allotted to him and is working on the land allotted to the applicant, even in that event, the applicant can very much said to be a person interested in the suit property, and is very much appropriate property, with the result that it cannot be said that his impleadment was wrong. Coming to the judgments, the judgment reported in AIR 1970 (Raj.) 167 was a case dealing with the question of necessary or proper party in the suit for presumption as to whether the seller of the property is necessary or proper party or not. That was not a case where any interest might have been created pending litigation. Likewise is the position of the judgments reported in AIR 1976 Goa 58 and AIR 1997 Delhi 319. So far as the judgment reported in 1989 Orissa 148 is concerned, that does the say that purchasers of the suit property during the pendency of the suit are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the issues involves in the suit. Suffice it to say that, that judgment did consider the impact of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only and did not at all consider the effect of Order 22 Rule 10. True, it is that merely by reason of assignment, the purchaser does not become necessary or proper party. But then the fact remains that he steps in the shoes of existing party, and is bound by the result of the litigation by virtue of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and it is for such contingency that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 are attracted whereunder the transferee may with the leave of the court continue the suit or defence. Even under the Scheme of Order 22 Rule 10, till the stage of such obtaining of the leave, the transferee shall remain bound by steps or actions till then taken by the existing defendants. As such the judgment reported in 1989 Orissa also does not help the petitioner. Corning to the judgment reported In AIR 1975 SC, 2151 suffice it to say that it deals with entirely different point, namely by reason of devolution or assignment or interest in the suit property, the litigation cannot be allowed to be brought to an end and may be continued by the successor or assignee. Here also as appears from the contention of the petitioner that there was assignment during the pendency of the litigation, as such under the scheme of things, the litigation does not come to and end and the judgment does not help the petitioner. 9. Here also as appears from the contention of the petitioner that there was assignment during the pendency of the litigation, as such under the scheme of things, the litigation does not come to and end and the judgment does not help the petitioner. 9. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to claim any relief against the applicant and the applicant cannot claim any relief against the non-petitioner in the present suit and therefore, he need not be impleaded. Suffice it to say that all said and done, the petitioner does seek to claim the applicant to be bound by the ultimate results of the suit. On being asked a specific question as to whether he is prepared to take the risk of continuing the suit without impleading the applicant despite his application and despite the impugned order? to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not prepared to give any categoric answer. 10. In Such circumstances, in my view, the learned trial court has rightly impleaded the applicant as party-defendant to the suit. 11. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******