Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 994 (RAJ)

Maina v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-11

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2011 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Parbatsar, Camp Makrana has rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the Civil Suit (CO No.11/2010) filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.4 for declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to a mining area, said to be comprised in Mine No.22, Rewat Dungari Range, Makrana. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, it is noticed that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 has filed the suit aforesaid claiming declaration and injunction in relation to a portion of the mining area in question on the basis of the alleged bapi rights; and the petitioners claim that their predecessor late Shri Abdul Samad had 1/2 share in the area claimed by the plaintiff and, therefore, they are required to be joined as parties to the suit. In order to assert their rights over the area in question, the petitioners rely upon the so-called admissions on behalf of the plaintiff and the alleged transfer of the bapi rights of the original patta holder Ramjaani, jointly in favour of the plaintiff and the said Shri Abdul Samad. However, there is no direct documentary proof in relation to the professed rights of the petitioners. 3. Looking to the nature of dispute where the petitioners are yet to establish their rights in the area in question, in the opinion of this Court, they could not have been joined as parties to the present suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration of his rights against the defendants in the Mining Department; rather joining the petitioners in the present suit would have enlarged the scope of the suit. Therefore, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted in having rejected the application for impleadment as moved by the petitioners. 4. Moreover, it has been pointed out during the course of submissions that the petitioners have indeed filed a separate suit seeking declaration of their rights in the mining area in question and therein, have joined the present plaintiff Sheikh Khurshid Ahmed as a defendant. A copy of the plaint has been filed by the contesting respondent with the application (IA No. 4088/2011) as Annexure-R/4/9. This application (IA No.4088/2011) is allowed and the document is taken on record. 5. A copy of the plaint has been filed by the contesting respondent with the application (IA No. 4088/2011) as Annexure-R/4/9. This application (IA No.4088/2011) is allowed and the document is taken on record. 5. With reference to the said document (Annex.R/4/9), it is clear that the petitioners have taken recourse to the appropriate remedy of filing the suit in relation to their professed rights. The petitioners are, of course, free to prosecute the said suit and to seek appropriate relief therein but so far the present suit by the respondent No.4 is concerned, there appears no reason to allow them to intervene. 6. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated apprehension that the observations as made in the impugned order might work to the prejudice of the petitioners in the suit filed by them. The learned counsel also made a prayer for consolidation of the two suits for trial when they are pending in the same court. 7. So far the apprehensions voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, it appears appropriate to observe that the impugned order dated 20.01.2011 has been passed by the learned Trial Court only for the purpose of deciding the application moved by the petitioners for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any observation therein could only be read as being relevant for the purpose of deciding the said application for impleadment and not beyond. In other words, any observation in the said order cannot be taken to be a final and conclusive verdict qua the rights of either of the parties that shall have to be determined at the appropriate stage. 8. So far the prayer for consolidation is concerned, it appears that the petitioners never made any such prayer before the learned Trial Court and never invited the orders from the Trial Court in that regard. The petitioners having failed to make the requisite prayer before the learned Trial Court, it does not appear appropriate to take up the same for consideration straight away in this petition. If the petitioners make any such prayer for consolidation, it would be expected of the learned Trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. 9. With the observations aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******