Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 721 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Sunil Kumar

2014-03-14

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.9.13 passed by the Civil Judge (SD) Makrana, in Civil Suit No.3/05, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party to the suit, stands rejected. 2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs/landlord, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profit against the respondent-defendant/tenant before the Civil Judge (SD), Makrana. The suit is being contested by the defendant by filing a written statement thereto. The petitioner herein, preferred an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as party to the suit on the ground that the disputed premises being ancestral property and keeping in view pendency of dispute between the parties before the Court of competent jurisdiction in respect thereof, as a co-sharer, he is a necessary party in the suit. 3. After due consideration, the application stands rejected by the Court below observing that no relief is sought in the suit against the petitioner herein and the landlord and tenant relationship having been established between the parties, the suit can otherwise be decided on merits without impleading the applicant Vijay Kumar as party to the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner ignoring the pendency of lis between the parties in respect of the premises in question. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the property in question to be self acquired property of his Grand Mother Smt. Mohani Devi, whereas the property is ancestral, wherein the petitioner is also a co-sharer. Learned counsel submitted that by the decision of the suit, the right and interest of the petitioner are likely to be adversely affected and therefore, he is necessary party in the matter. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the order impugned, submitted that the Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party to the suit so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, as per the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC, the Court may at any stage add a person as party to the suit as defendant or plaintiff, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff has preferred the suit seeking eviction of the respondent-defendant from suit premises in terms of provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and for recovery of mesne profit. Thus, even if the petitioner is presumed to be co-owner of the premises, his presence is not required for effectual and complete adjudication of the lis between the parties inasmuch as a co-owner is entitled to file the petition for ejectment without impleading other co-owner as party to the proceedings. In the proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises, the question of title or ownership cannot be gone into but only rights and liabilities of landlord or tenant can be decided and therefore, in absence of any dispute as to the landlord and tenant relationship, the presence of the petitioner who alleged to be a co-owner of the premises is not necessary. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party to the suit. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below exercising its judicial discretion does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******