Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1571 (MP)

Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. Poonam Devi

2014-12-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order dated 2.7.2014 passed by the trial Court in Case No.12/10 MJC. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant-Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal under Order 1 rule 10 CPC to be added as party in the execution proceedings for execution of the decree passed in civil suit No.5B/2003 (State Bank of India v. M/s. N. Kumar and another). 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit in respect of the suit property against the State Bank of India, therefore, he is interested person for participation in the execution proceedings in respect of aforesaid suit. 3. Respondent/State Bank of India filed reply of aforesaid application on the premise that in Civil Suit No.5B/2003, wherein the decree was in favour of bank, the applicant-Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal was not a party. The suit property was put to auction and one Smt. Poonam Devi had purchased the same. The auction money has also been deposited in the trial Court. The contents of the averments made in the application were also denied. With the aforesaid, it was submitted that applicant-Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal is not entitled to participate in the execution proceedings. 4. The trial Court after referring to various judgments passed by this Court has ruled that in view of the fact that Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal was not a party to Civil Suit No.5B/2003, wherein decree was passed on 24.12.2004, pursuant whereto auction has already been taken place and auction money has been deposited and that apart, at no point of time applicant-Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal was party to such proceedings, wherein auction was held, under such circumstances, there is no reason or justification to allow applicant-Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal as necessary party. Accordingly, application has been rejected. 5. Having seen the impugned order and the contention advanced, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal does not suffer from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Manish Sharma for petitioner; R. K. Soni for respondent/Smt. Poonam Devi; A. K. Agrawal for respondent/State Bank of India.