Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1456 (BOM)

Dempo Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Pradit Naik

2013-07-30

F.M.REIS

body2013
JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri A.V. Nigalye, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim, dated 18.07.2008, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the Respondent No.6 to be impleaded in the suit filed by the Petitioners, came to be allowed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed a suit against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, inter alia, alleging that they have obstructed the activities carried out by the Petitioner through a private road existing in their own property. It is further their case that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have unlawfully obstructed the activities being carried out by the Petitioner in their own property. The relief sought by the Petitioner is for a declaration that the said Respondents have no right to do any such obstruction and for a permanent injunction restraining the said Respondents from obstructing the activities being carried out by the Petitioner. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. by their written statement, disputed the claim put forward by the Petitioner. After issues were framed and the matter was posted for evidence the Respondent No.6. who is a local Panchayat where the disputed property is located, filed the said application to get themselves impleaded in the suit filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has objected to the said application and by the impugned Order dated 18.07.2008, the learned Judge allowed the said application and impleaded the Respondent No. 6 in the suit filed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said Order the Petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that there is nothing disclosed by the Respondent No.6 in their application to show any lis between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 with regard to the disputed property. Learned Counsel further pointed out that when there is no nexus shown by the Respondent No. 6 with the dispute under adjudication in the suit filed by the Petitioner, the question of allowing the impleadment of the Respondent No. 6 is totally misplaced. Learned Counsel further pointed out that when there is no nexus shown by the Respondent No. 6 with the dispute under adjudication in the suit filed by the Petitioner, the question of allowing the impleadment of the Respondent No. 6 is totally misplaced. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it is well settled that the Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in the suit, are dominus litus and that the obstructions complained is on account of alleged activities carried out by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the relief sought by the Petitioner in the suit by no way can affect the alleged rights of the Respondent No.6 with regard to the disputed property. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity affecting his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order by allowing the impleadment of the Respondent No. 6 in the suit. 5. On the other hand. Shri Nigalye, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6, pointed out that the disputed access is created by the Petitioner illegally and without due permission from the Respondent No.6. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the activities carried out by the Petitioner are illegal, the learned Judge was justified to allow the application to implead the Respondent No.6 in the suit. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly allowed the application. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. It need not be emphasised that it is now well settled that the Petitioners who are the Plaintiffs in the suit, are dominus litus. Apart from that there is no relief sought by the Petitioners which would otherwise remotely affect the right of the Respondent No.6 to stop the alleged acts of illegalities by the Petitioners. In case the Respondent No. 6 has any grievance with regard to the activities carried out by the Petitioner it is always open to the Respondent No.6 to take action and avail of such remedies in accordance of law. It is not possible to get their claims adjudicated by seeking the impleadment in the suit filed by the Petitioners. In case the Respondent No. 6 has any grievance with regard to the activities carried out by the Petitioner it is always open to the Respondent No.6 to take action and avail of such remedies in accordance of law. It is not possible to get their claims adjudicated by seeking the impleadment in the suit filed by the Petitioners. In such circumstances the learned judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order and allow the Respondent No. 6 to be impleaded in the suit. There is nothing to suggest any nexus between the dispute in the suit and the alleged claim put forward by the Respondent No.6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. is justified to rely upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC 98 in the case of J.J. Lal Put. Ltd. & Ors. v. M.R Murali & Anr., wherein the Apex Court has observed at para 28 thus : "28. Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlord-tenant suit. The relationship of the Municipal Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly the question of title between Hemlata Mohan, and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings. The impleadment of any of the two applicants would change the complexion of litigation and raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this litigation. The presence of either of the applicants is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved in these proceedings nor is their presence necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties. Any decision in these proceedings would govern and bind the parties herein. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title, whatever it may be, in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed." 7. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and for the reasons stated herein above. I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order and allow the application of the Respondent No.6 to be impleaded in the suit. The applications for impleadment are dismissed." 7. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and for the reasons stated herein above. I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order and allow the application of the Respondent No.6 to be impleaded in the suit. The presence of the Respondent No. 6 is not at all necessary to decide the matter in controversy. The Respondent No.6 is free to take any action with regard to their grievances in accordance with law if so entitled. 8. In view of the above. I pass the following: ORDER (I) The impugned Order dated 18.07.2008 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the Respondent No.6 dated 26.11.2007 to be impleaded in the suit, stands dismissed. (II) Rule is made absolute in above terms.