Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2463 (ALL)

Rajwati v. Sri Nivas Sharma (Since Deceased)

2014-08-12

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Shashi Kant Gupta, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahar in Civil Revision No. 199 of 2011 (Smt. Rajwati and others Vs. Sri Nivas Sharma and others) as well as the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Suit No. 420 of 1997 whereby the impleadment application as well as amendment application was rejected by the trial court. 2. The petitioners filed a Suit No. 420 of 1997 against the respondents for cacellation of a Will dated 11.8.1994 alleged to be executed by Ramshree Devi in favour of respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere on the basis of alleged forged will on the plot of petitioners and further not to execute any sale deed of the disputed property. After receiving the notice respondents appeared before the court below and filed their written statement denying the plaint allegation. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC as well as an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC on the basis that respondents have executed two sale deed dated 26.4.2005 in favour of smt. Saroj Devi W/o Dhirendra Singh, Resident of Village Dhawan, Tehsil Hapur, District Ghaziabad and another sale deed dated 16.10.2008 in favour of Smt. Sarvari Devi W/o Sattar Khan, Resident of Village Sherpur, Pargana and Tehsil Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar, as such, they may be impleaded as Respondents No. 7 and 8. Respondents filed their objection against the said application of petitioner and alleged that aforementioned application paper no. 249/A-1 filed for impleadment as well as amendment is not maintainable and there is no need to implead aforesaid persons. After hearing the parties, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 3, Bulandshahar rejected the aforesaid application of petitioners on 22.3.2011. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision No. 199 of 2011 before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The District Judge, Bulandshahar dismissed the said revision on 30.4.2012. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision No. 199 of 2011 before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The District Judge, Bulandshahar dismissed the said revision on 30.4.2012. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the record shows that a suit for cancellation of the will deed with a prayer to grant permanent injunction was filed and during the pendency of the said suit, petitioners have filed an amendment application and an impleadment application on the basis that respondents have executed two sale deed in favour of third party and the third party was required to be impleaded as respondents, however, the same was dismissed by the courts below. The record further shows that the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons while dismissing the impleadment and amendment application. The courts below were fully justified that during the pendency of the suit if any sale deed is executed in favour of third party it will be hit by the principles of lis pendents in case the suit is decreed and the will is declared null and void. The impugned orders passed by the courts below is neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. This Court can not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law. 5. In view of the above, I do not see any justification to interfere in the matter. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.