Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1232 (RAJ)

Murli Manohar Arora v. Parmeshwari Devi

2015-07-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed by the respondents Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and others against the legal representatives of Hemant Bhargav for eviction from the suit property. The application was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners were co-parceners along with the plaintiffs and a suit filed by them seeking partition of the suit property was pending consideration before the competent civil court and, therefore, they were necessary parties to the suit. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs, the trial court came to the conclusion that besides the fact that the suit was pending since 1999; the application was belated and as the suit for eviction and not for arrears, it cannot be said that the petitioners were necessary parties to the suit and, consequently dismissed the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as soon as the petitioners became aware of pendency of the suit, the application was filed, the petitioners are not impleaded as parties to the suit, the same is likely to give rise to complications and as the petitioners are co-parceners they were necessary parties to the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents informs that the final arguments in the suit have been heard by the trial court and the matter was fixed for pronouncement, however, on account of transfer of the presiding officer, the next date is yet to be fixed in the matter. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of the suit, petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit. It was also submitted that the application is highly belated and has been made only with a view to delay the pending proceedings and, therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the trial court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 7. From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the suit has been filed based on landlord-tenant relationship seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit property. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 7. From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the suit has been filed based on landlord-tenant relationship seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit property. The suit was filed way back in the year 1999, the suit filed by the petitioners/other litigations between the parties were also pending and the plea raised by the petitioners that they were not aware of the pendency of the suit apparently does not evoke confidence. 8. Besides the above fact, in a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the claim of a co-parceners for being impleaded as a parties to the suit, wherein there is no claim that the coparceners had let out the property to the tenant, it cannot be said that such a co-parcener would be a necessary party to the suit. In case, the petitioners, whose suit for partition is pending, is impleaded as parties to the present proceedings, the same is likely to change the scope of the suit and on that count also the impleadment is not necessary. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no substances in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.