Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 422 (RAJ)

Jalaluddin v. Mohd. Sadeeq

2016-03-16

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 1.5.15 of the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, in Suit No.57/13, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit. 2. The relevant facts are that a bapi patta of mine no.167 ad measuring 57'x42', situated at Chosira Pipliwali Range (Gunawati) of Makrana, was issued in favour of Deen Mohammad s/o Sadamulla and Ishaq & Gafoor, sons of Rahim Bux. The respondents no.1 to 10 herein, the plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and its authorities of Department of Mines, seeking the relief in terms that they may be declared entitled for license to operate the mine no.167, measuring 38'x42', which is in possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants no.4 & 5 on the strength of the bapi rights and the official respondents be directed to issue the license in their favour. That apart, permanent injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs in terms that they may not be dispossessed from the mine in question and no obstruction be created in excavation of the mine. It has been specifically averred by the plaintiffs in the plaint that out of total mining area 57'x42', mining area measuring 19'x42' has already been purchased by them from the legal heirs of Deen Mohammed by way of registered sale deed and after declaration of their rights over the same by the competent court, they are in possession thereof. Suffice it to say that the suit preferred relates to the mining area measuring 38'x42' and no relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of mining area 19'x42' alleged to have been purchased by them from legal heirs of Deen Mohammed. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein, legal heirs of Deen Mohammed, preferred an application for impleading them as party defendants in the suit, stating that the suit seeking declaration has been filed by the plaintiffs with the averments that the share of Deen Mohammed has been purchased by them by way of registered sale deed whereas, the sale deed executed in their favour, being a forged document, is null and void. It was averred that claiming the right over the mining area measuring 28'6'' x 42' of mine no.167, the petitioners have filed a suit no.21/11 before the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, wherein, the plaintiffs in the suit herein, are party defendants. That apart, it was averred that against the plaintiff no. 3 and others, applicant-Mohd. Yusuf has filed a complaint for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana wherein, after investigation, the police filed negative final report, which has been accepted by the court. The petitioners claimed that in view of the existence of dispute in respect of the sale deed referred to in the plaint and the pendency of the suit preferred by them before the court of competent jurisdiction, for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues, being necessary party, they deserve to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit, preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs. 4. The application was contested by the respondents-plaintiffs by filing a reply thereto. After due consideration, by the order impugned, the application stands rejected by the court below. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the relief claimed in both the suits i.e. the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs and the suit filed by the petitioners relates to declaration of rights in respect of mine no.167 and the petitioners' rights are bound to be adversely affected by decision of the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that they are impleaded as party defendants in the suit. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners' ancestor Shri Deen Mohammed being the co-sharer in the mine no.167, covered by patta no.51, the relief as prayed for in the suit, cannot be granted without extending them an opportunity of hearing. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the suit filed, there is no dispute raised regarding the mining area measuring 19'x42', which has been purchased by the respondents-plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed from the legal heirs of Deen Mohammed. Learned counsel submitted that in the suit previously filed being no.2/10 (16/10), an application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit was rejected by the Additional District Judge (F.T.), Parbatsar vide order dated 21.8.10. Learned counsel submitted that in the suit previously filed being no.2/10 (16/10), an application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit was rejected by the Additional District Judge (F.T.), Parbatsar vide order dated 21.8.10. It is submitted that the said suit was ultimately decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.10 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed a leave to appeal, which has not been granted till this date. Learned counsel submitted that in the suit filed, the plaintiffs have claimed the relief only against the official respondents whereas, in the original suit no.21/11, the petitioners have questioned the sale deed executed by their predecessor way back in the year 1980 and thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the controversy involved in both the suits, is same and thus, the petitioners herein, cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper party in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and thus, the court below has committed no error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the mining area measuring 19'x42' covered by the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of Deen Mohammed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs though, referred to in the plaint for clarifying the factual position, is not subject matter of the suit and the relief claimed therein, in no manner, relates to the said mining area. In the suit filed, the plaintiffs have claimed the relief only against the official respondents in respect of the mining area in their possession on the strength of the bapi patta granted inter alia in favour of their predecessors. Indisputably, the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the rights over the mining area ad measuring 19'x42' already stands decreed by the court of competent jurisdiction. A perusal of the suit filed by the petitioners, reveals that they have claimed right over the mining area measuring 28'6''x42' but there is no prayer as such regarding the declaration of sale deed executed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs as illegal and void. A perusal of the suit filed by the petitioners, reveals that they have claimed right over the mining area measuring 28'6''x42' but there is no prayer as such regarding the declaration of sale deed executed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs as illegal and void. Be that as it may, merely because, the suit preferred by the plaintiffs claiming the relief as aforesaid, is pending before the court below, which is being contested by the respondents-plaintiffs as defendants therein, the petitioners does not acquire any right whatsoever to inter meddle in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, seeking relief against the official respondents for enforcement of their rights, not related to the mining area ad measuring 19'x42' in respect whereof, their rights have already been declared by the court of competent jurisdiction. Obviously, if the suit preferred by the petitioners is decreed, the consequences will follow but then, as on date, on account of pendency of the said suit, the petitioners cannot be considered to be either proper or necessary party in the suit filed on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, claiming the relief as aforesaid. 9. Thus, order impugned passed by the court below, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.