Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 950 (RAJ)

Amod Bhatnagar v. Additional Civil Judge

2011-05-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 13th April, 2011, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge No.3, Kota (South) dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC imploring them to be impleaded as party-defendants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the suit was instituted in the year 1994 and 8 persons filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC imploring that they should be impleaded as party-defendants and their application was allowed. The petitioners also filed similar application in the year 2011 beseeching that they are also the necessary party and for the just decision of the case, it was essential to implead them as party defendants and the application could be decided in their favour. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that if eight persons were allowed to be impleaded as party in the year 2002, the case of the petitioners being similar, they also ought to have been impleaded as party defendants on the same analogy, but the learned trial court arbitrarily dismissed the application. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC observing that the case was at the final stage and was listed for final arguments. The petitioners never filed such an application during last 16 years when the suit was pending. Now after 16 years of the pendency of suit, the petitioners could not be allowed to be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit. 5. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not seem to be arbitrary and perverse. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the said order and the writ petition being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, which stands dismissed accordingly. 7. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******