Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2204 (RAJ)

Vardi Chand v. Nagar Palika

2009-10-23

VINEET KOTHARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2008, whereby, the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by one Pankaj Mehta - respondent No. 2 herein to be impleaded in the present suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff against the Municipal Council, Badi Sadri. 2. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the petitioner was claiming the injunction against the Municipal Council in respect of a plot which was. said to have been allotted to him by the Municipal Council, which was later on found to be disputed and the possession of suit plot could not be given to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council. The applicant seeking impleadment also moved application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. with the averment that the neighbourhood described in the suit was similar to the neighbourhood of the plot which was allotted to him and, therefore, he has interest in suit property and, therefore, deserves to be impleaded as a defendant in the said suit. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has not specified the plot number in the plaint and, therefore, prima facie it appeared to the trial Court that the applicant Pankaj Mehta, respondent No. 2 herein describing his property to be with the same neighbourhood could have a valid interest in the suit property and, therefore, deserved to be impleaded as necessary and proper party in the said suit. Learned trial Court has also referred to a case of 1980 in respect of Plot No. 73 namely Misc. Case No. 208/1980 in which an injunction order was passed against the State Government in respect of said plot. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that scope of suit could not be expanded by impleading a person merely because he claims his interest in the suit property even though he has not specified the plot number, which was allotted to him by the Municipal Council. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of LIC v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade, AIR 1990 SC 185 and two decisions of this Court in the case of Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop, 1996 RLW 215 and Girdhari Lal v. Nagar Parishad and another, AIR 1988 Rajasthan 128 . 4. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of LIC v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade, AIR 1990 SC 185 and two decisions of this Court in the case of Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop, 1996 RLW 215 and Girdhari Lal v. Nagar Parishad and another, AIR 1988 Rajasthan 128 . 4. In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, the Income Tax officer was found to be not a necessary party in a suit filed against the LIC in respect of insurance policy after its maturity by the LIC. 5. In Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop (supra) this Court held that in a suit for declaration against the Municipality, the party praying to be impleaded in the suit filed against the Municipality stated that he may be impleaded so that the suit may be properly defended. This ground was not found to be sufficient by this Court. 6. In Girdharl Lal v. Nagar Parishad (supra) the Manager of Vyayam Shala sought to be impleaded on the same ground that he would be a better position to defend the suit and this was found not be sufficient for impleadment. 7. From the aforesaid, It is very clear that facts obtaining in the three judgments cited by the learned counsel were entirely different from the present. case, whereas, the applicant-respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that he was allotted same plot and the possession could not be given only for the said reason and, therefore, prima facie the applicant has an interest in the said suit property for which the present plaintiff was claiming the injunction. The impleadment as a party under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. can be permitted if the Court finds that the applicant is a necessary or even a proper party in a suit. This is obviously to obviate the multiplicity of proceedings and expeditious disposal of -the controversy in respect of suit property. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed such application of the applicant and to put an end to the controversy in respect of suit property as thought it fit to implead the applicant as defendant in the said suit. This Court finds no error in the impugned order and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to opposite side and trial Court.Petition dismissed. *******