Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1558 (RAJ)

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

2012-07-16

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Jagdish, is aggrieved by the order dated 7.6.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application filed by the respondent No.4, Bajrang Lal, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. for arraying him as a party in the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat for mandatory, and permanent injunction. In his plaint, he has claimed that he is in possession of property situated at 8 PSC 'B' Khajuwala Road, Near Jambheshwar Temple. The said property is ad-measuring 70X170 ft. The said plot is registered as Gair Mumkin Aabadi. He had further claimed that he is in possession of said plot for last thirty years. Since he was in possession of the land for a long time, in 1976 he had applied to the Gram Panchayat for the allotment of the said land in his name. Therefore, on 20.3.1978, the Sarpanch had issued a NOC in his favour. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for being granted the lease deed for the said plot. However, the respondents have not acted upon his request. When the petitioner started raising certain construction, the respondents prevented him from doing so. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction. Along with suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. By order dated 29.5.2012, the learned trial Court granted the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner; it directed the Gram Panchayat not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot. 3. On 31.5.2012, the respondent No.4, Bajrang Lal, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party defendant. In his application, he pleaded that in fact, he is in possession of land in dispute. According to him, even his father was in possession of the said land. Moreover on 6.2.2006, the Gram Panchayat had issued a NOC in his favour. Therefore, he prayed that he should be arrayed as defendant in the suit. By order dated 7.6.2012, his application was allowed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. According to him, even his father was in possession of the said land. Moreover on 6.2.2006, the Gram Panchayat had issued a NOC in his favour. Therefore, he prayed that he should be arrayed as defendant in the suit. By order dated 7.6.2012, his application was allowed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has over-looked the fact that the respondent No.4, is not a necessary party as the dispute is between the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the prayer made in the suit. According to the first prayer, the petitioner has sought an injunction against the Gram Panchayat for not dispossessing, and for not issuing a patta in favour of any other party. According to the second prayer, he has sought an injunction directing the Gram Panchayat to issue Patta only in his favour. Secondly, even while deciding the issue, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute or not, the respondent, Gram Panchayat is free to produce the respondent No.4 as a witness, in order to establish the fact that the petitioner is not in possession of the plot. Therefore, at best, the respondent No.4, can be brought in as a witness. But as he is not a necessary party to the dispute, he should not have been allowed to be made a defendant. Lastly, that by making him a defendant in the suit, the learned Magistrate is merely complicating the issue, for others may also claim that they are in possession of the plot. Thus, by permitting the respondent No.4, to be arrayed as a defendant, the learned trial court is permitting others also to raise the same plea only to be as arrayed as defendants. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 6. Although, it is true that the suit has been filed only against the Gram Panchayat, but considering the fact that the respondent No.4, equally claims to be in possession of the plot, he has to prove his actual possession. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 6. Although, it is true that the suit has been filed only against the Gram Panchayat, but considering the fact that the respondent No.4, equally claims to be in possession of the plot, he has to prove his actual possession. Since the petitioner is seeking an injunction that "the Gram Panchayat be prevented from issuing a Patta in favour of any other person" and is equally seeking a patta in his own favour, obviously, if these prayers were granted, it would adversely affect the right of respondent No.4, who claims to be in possession of the plot. Therefore, the decree which may be issued in the petitioner's favour would adversely affect the rights of respondent No.4. 7. It would, indeed, to be a mockery of justice, if the decree were to be passed in such a manner so as to adversely affect the rights of the respondent no.4, while denying him the opportunity of hearing. Undoubtedly, such a decree would violate the principle of natural justice. Since, respondent No.4, claims to be in possession of the land in dispute, since he also claims to have been issued a NOC by the Gram Panchayat, he certainly deserves to be heard and deserves to be granted an opportunity to submit his side of the story, before an order is passed which may adversely effect his interest and rights. 8. The learned Magistrate has also noticed that while both the parties, the petitioner and Bajrang Lal, are claiming to be in possession of the property, it is a matter of evidence for both the parties to establish their respective cases. Therefore, an opportunity has to be given to Bajrang Lal to put forth his case, and to prove his possession over the land. Therefore, even according to the learned Magistrate, and in view of this Court rightly so, the respondent No.4 is a necessary party. 9. Having passed the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed a bonafide apprehension that since the temporary injunction order, dated 29.5.2012, has been passed in favour of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat may over-reach the said order by granting the Patta in favour of respondent No.4. The learned counsel has brought the temporary injunction order to the noticed of the court. The learned counsel has brought the temporary injunction order to the noticed of the court. According to the said order, the Gram Panchayat was directing not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute. Considering the fact that the battle is now between the plaintiff and respondent No.4, considering the fact that Gram Panchayat may over-reach the temporary injunction order and may issue a patta in favour of the respondent No.4, it is, hereby, directed that the Gram Panchayat shall not issue any patta with regard to the property in dispute in favour of a third party including the respondent No.4. On the issue, whether the order dated 29.5.12 shall apply to the respondent No.4 or not, the petitioner is free to file an application for seeking injunction against the respondent No.4, who is a newly added party to the suit. With these observation, this petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******