Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 784 (RAJ)

Radheyshyam Goyal v. Mahaveer

2015-04-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.3 Subhash Goyal under Order I, Rule 10 CPC has been allowed and he has been ordered to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and perpetual injunction against one Mahaveer and the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar seeking restrain against them from raising construction next to the wall of the suit property, which admittedly is in possession of the petitioner. 2. A written statement was filed by Mahaveer disputing the averments made in the suit. Whereafter, the present application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC was filed by Subhash Goyal, who is nephew of the petitioner with the averments that two suits one filed by Radheyshyam seeking declaration regarding the ownership of the suit property and another suit filed by Smt. Godawari Devi and the applicant seeking partition of he suit property were pending consideration before the competent civil courts and therefore, the applicant was a necessary party to the suit. 3. The application was opposed by the petitioner. However, the trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that on the material available on record, it was apparent that for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit the presence of the applicant - Subhash Goyal was necessary and consequently, allowed the application and directed his impleadment as defendant No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 is not a necessary party to the suit, inasmuch as, in the suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has sought relief against defendant - Mahaveer, a neighbour and the Municipal council and has not sought any relief against any other party. By impleadment of Subhash Goyal, the scope of the suit would be enlarged and therefore, the trial court was not justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently supported the order passed by the trial court. By impleadment of Subhash Goyal, the scope of the suit would be enlarged and therefore, the trial court was not justified in accepting the application filed by the respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that the trial court was justified in impleading the respondent as party, inasmuch as, it is not in dispute that two other suits pertaining to the same property are pending consideration before the competent civil courts between the petitioner and the respondents and the presence of the respondent would be necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. For impleadment of any party to the suit, the primary requirement which needs to be satisfied is that presence of such a party is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the present case, a bare look at the suit Annex.-1 filed by the petitioner reveals that the suit is confined to seeking injunction against one Mahaveer, who is the neighbour and was raising construction next to the wall of the house in question and against the Municipal Council for restraining the said defendant No.1 from raising the construction. 8. The application was filed by the respondents based on the fact that another suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration regarding the ownership/title of the suit property and a suit filed by legal representatives of Ganga Devi including the respondent seeking partition of the suit property were pending, which was given out as the sole reason for getting impleadment. It was also alleged that the plaintiff - Radheyshyam does not have the sole right qua the property and therefore, the respondent be impleaded as party. There is no allegation in the application regarding any collusion etc. between the petitioner plaintiff and defendant No.1. 9. The plea sought to be raised by the respondent regarding the ownership of the suit property, if permitted, would result in enlarging the scope of the suit from a suit for injunction into a title suit between the plaintiff and defendant No.3, which cannot be permitted by way of impleadment of the party in the present suit. 10. 9. The plea sought to be raised by the respondent regarding the ownership of the suit property, if permitted, would result in enlarging the scope of the suit from a suit for injunction into a title suit between the plaintiff and defendant No.3, which cannot be permitted by way of impleadment of the party in the present suit. 10. As already noticed, the impleadment can only take place if the presence of the person is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute in the suit and not a dispute to be created by way of fresh impleadment. 11. The trial court has merely reiterated the requirements of Order I, Rule 10 CPC without giving any finding as to how the presence of the respondent would help to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute and said order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application filed by the respondent No.3 under Order I, Rule 10 CPC is dismissed.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******