Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 565 (RAJ)

Gopal Vyas S/o B. C. Vyas v. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur

2003-04-17

S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Matter is placed on the board as process fees and notices filed by the petitioner are defective. The non- petitioners No. 2 to 4 are duly represented by their advocate. So far as to the non-petitioners No. 1 is concerned, it is neither necessary nor proper party in this revision petition, thus no need to serve the notices.Admit. 2. Mr. Alok Garg, has already put appearance on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 to 4. Matter is, therefore, complete. 3. The revision petition is taken up for final hearing on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Under the impugned order, the learned trial Court, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 115/1997 allowed the application filed by the non- petitioners No. 2 to 4 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that these non-petitioners are proper party to the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit against the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur to protect his alleged legal possession over the 'nala'. The non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 have come with the case that this disputed plot is on the 'nala' and which is used for thoroughfare. 6. In these factual back ground, in support thereof the documentary evidence has already been produced, the learned trial Court has passed just and reasonable order in which interference of this Court is not called for. The presence, of the non- petitioners No. 2 to 4 will certainly help to the Court to decide the matter. Otherwise also in case the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner alleged rights of the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are likely to be adversely affected. Above that this opposition to the application of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 by the plaintiff-petitioners goes to show that prima facie what the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 stated appears to be correct. In case the plaintiff-petitioners would not have been carved out this plot in the 'nala', they would not have objected this application of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4. 7. This is wholly frivolous, misconceived and misplaced revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs, which is quantified to Rs. 1,100/- (Eleven hundred only).Revision petition dismissed. *******