Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 217 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad v. Bal Chand

2016-02-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 13.8.2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against Bal Chand, Rajendra Kumar and Ganesha Ram and sought relief that three defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession. The suit was filed on the basis of a oral gift deed by Late Shri Ladu Ram or his predecessor. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants and it was claimed that the respondents were owner of the suit property based on transfer deed executed by power of attorney holder of Late Shri Ladu Ram's legal representatives. The suit remained pending and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was rejected by the trial court on 29.5.2015. 4. Where after, the present application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of legal representatives of Late Shri Ladu Ram as indicated in para 5 of the application. It was submitted that the dispute in the present suit pertains to the possession and ownership of the suit property and therefore, the presence of the said parties was necessary. 5. The application was opposed by the defendants wherein it was submitted that the suit property has been transferred to them and the transferor is not a necessary property to the suit. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the suit is confined to seeking injunction against illegal dispossession and allegations have been made only against the defendants No.1 to 3, the presence of legal representatives of late Shri Ladu Ram was not necessary and consequently, rejected the application. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed error in dismissing the application, inasmuch as while deciding the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the said court had itself observed that as the petitioner had not impleaded the legal representatives of late Shri Ladu Ram, there was no prima facie case in his favour and now when the petitioner has filed the application, the same has been rejected. 8. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the plaint filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner has made specific averments that the legal representatives of late Shri Ladu Ram were all settled in the State of Assam and that on account of political rivalry, the defendants were seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property and sought relief specifically against the three defendants from interfering in petitioner's possession was asked. The very fact that the subject matter of the suit was simple injunction and was not declaration regarding the title, the presence of the legal representatives of late Shri Ladu Ram was not at all necessary as the allegations in the plaint and the relief were directed only against the defendants. 10. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as the legal representatives of late Shri Ladu Ram are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present litigation for injunction. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.