Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 949 (MP)

Omprakash v. Premsingh

2001-12-13

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2001
JUDGMENT Applicant-intervener has directed this revision against the order dated 9.1.1998 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class 11, Ratlam in CS 258-A/95, thereby rejecting his application under O. 1 R.10, CPC for imp-leading him as party in the pending suit. Brief facts of the case arc that n The plot No.8 situated in Deora Deonarayan Colony of Ratlam established and developed by respondent No.2 was allotted to applicant by allotment order dated 12.1.1993 on the application of the applicant dated 15.1.1991 on initial deposit of Rs. 2,000/- for the registration. It is not disputed that subsequently a letter was issued by the respondent No.2 allotting same plot to respondent No.1 by the letter dated. 12.7.1993. It is stated that on receipt of aforesaid letter, non-applicant No.1 deposited Rs. 57,380/- as consideration for the aforesaid plot with the respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, on raising objections by the applicant, non-applicant No. 2 cancelled the said allotment in favour of respondent No.1 by issuing a letter dated 15.6.1995. On receipt of the said letter, non-applicant No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Ratlam for permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendants for issuing allotment of the alleged plot to any other person except plaintiffs. In the aforesaid suit, on 5.4.1997, the present applicant filed I A No.3 under O. 1, R. 10, CPC r/w S. 151, CPC for imp-leading him as defendant in the suit filed by the non-applicant No. 1. The contention of the applicant in his application is that the disputed plot No. 8 was allotted to him on 12.1.1993 much prior to letter of allotment dated 12.7.1993 issued by the Corporation to the non-applicant No. 1. In the application, it was also stated that on getting the knowledge of such allotment in favour of non-applicant No.1, the present applicant raised objections before the Corporation and Corporation thereafter by letter dated 14.6.1995, cancelled the order of allotment issued in favour of non-applicant No 1. On the aforesaid facts it was prayed that in a suit filed by the non applicant No.1-plaintiff, he becomes necessary party for the disposa of the matter in controversy. Learned trial Judge, on considering the submissions of the learned counsel, dismissed the said application filed on behalf of the applicant by the order impugned; hence this revision. On the aforesaid facts it was prayed that in a suit filed by the non applicant No.1-plaintiff, he becomes necessary party for the disposa of the matter in controversy. Learned trial Judge, on considering the submissions of the learned counsel, dismissed the said application filed on behalf of the applicant by the order impugned; hence this revision. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is not in dispute that initially disputed plot No.8 was allotted to applicant by the Corporation by allotment order dated 12.11.1993 and without giving any information or notice to the applicant, the said plot was subsequently allotted to non-applicant No.1 by letter dated 12.7.1993. It also not in dispute that on raising objections by the applicant, the Corporation cancelled the said allotment issued in favour of non-applicant No.1 by letter dated. 14.6.1995. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion, for the fair disposal of the suit filed by the non-applicant No.1 against non-applicant, No.2, the present applicant becomes necessary party. The trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the applicant under O. 1 R. 10, CPC for imp-leading him as defendant in the alleged suit. As such, the order impugned of the trial Court being erroneous, deserves to be set aside. Consequently, this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant intervener is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court dismissing his application filed under O. 1 R. 10, CPC is set aside and it is further ordered that said application be allowed and the applicant be added as defendant No.2 in the pending suit CS 258-A/95 within fifteen days of the receipt of the record by the trial Court. . In view of the old pendency of the suit, trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit and dispose it of as early as possible. There shall no order as to costs.