Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 681 (RAJ)

Kishore Chand v. UIT, Sriganganagar

2016-05-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the respondent Ved Prakash Joshi has been allowed and he has been impleaded as party defendant to the suit. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, issuance of Patta, removal of encroachment and for compensation against the State, Urban Improvement Trust and Ved Prakash Joshi, who were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 3. In the suit, reliefs were claimed against the defendant No. 1 and 2 as well as defendant No. 3. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant No. 2 and, thereafter, an application under Order 23, Rule 1 C.P.C. was filed on 16.2.2014, which was only a one line application that the plaintiffs do not want to proceed in the suit against defendant No. 3 and, therefore, his name may be deleted from the array of the parties. Thereafter, it appears that when the application came up before the Court on 16.5.2014, oral prayer was made for deletion of name of defendant No. 1 as well and Trial Court ordered for deletion of names of defendant No. 1 i.e. State and defendant No. 3 i.e. Ved Prakash joshi. On the same day, after the order was passed for deletion of parties, an application was filed by Ved Prakash Joshi under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., seeking impleadment as party. No reply to the said application was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs and the Trial Court after hearing the parties by its impugned order dated 12.4.2016 allowed the application and ordered for impleadment of Ved Prakash Joshi as defendant No. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the application filed by the respondent inasmuch as once the proceedings were permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs qua the said defendant, after service and in his presence, the application seeking impleadment was not maintainable. 5. It is also submitted that the applicant even otherwise is not necessary party to the suit and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. 5. It is also submitted that the applicant even otherwise is not necessary party to the suit and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the plaint filed as Annex.P/1 reveals that repeated allegations have been made in the plaint against respondent Ved Prakash Joshi at several places in the plaint inasmuch as each paragraph of the plaint contains allegations against said Ved Prakash Joshi and ultimately relief (d) has specifically been claimed against said Ved Prakash Joshi in the suit. 8. It is surprising that the petitioners filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1 C.P.C. with a single line statement that they want to withdraw the suit against defendant No. 3 and his name may be deleted from the array of the parties. The Court granted the said application with oral prayer for deletion of name of defendant No. 1 as well. However, the petitioners failed to take any steps regarding frame of the plaint, wherein, as already noticed, repeated allegations have been made against defendant No. 3 and reliefs have been claimed against defendant No. 1 as well and relief (d) has been specifically claimed against defendant No. 3, who was sought to be deleted and was permitted to be deleted by the Trial Court. 9. The very fact that entire foundation of the suit was repeated allegations against the defendant Ved Prakash Joshi and specific relief has been claimed against said Ved Prakash Joshi, it cannot be said that the Trial Court committed any error in accepting the application filed by the respondent for being impleaded as party. The claim of the petitioner that once the application under Order 23, Rule 1 C.P.C. has been granted, the application for impleadment was not maintainable has no substance. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.