Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1631 (RAJ)

Madho Lal Saini v. MiDevi

2017-07-24

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. - The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners assailing the order dated 05/12/2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 210/2003 titled as Madho Lal Saini vs. Mishri Devi @ Misri Devi & Ors, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. 2. Material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff/petitioners and plaintiff/respondent No. 7 and 8 filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and to declare the sale deed dated 06/11/2007 executed by defendant/respondent No. 1 to 3 in favour of the defendant/respondent No. 5 and 6 to be void and ineffective as against the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction. 3. Thereafter, plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, stating therein that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 came to know that defendant No. 5 and 6 sold the property in dispute to Lalchand Prajapat through sale agreement dated 10/01/2008 and thereafter, Lalchand moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 08/01/2015. After dismissal of said application, Lalchand forcibly took possession to the property in dispute, thus, the necessity arose to implead him as party to the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application in a mechanical manner ignoring the material aspect of the case. Learned counsel also contends that after dismissal of previous application filed by Lalchand under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, he forcibly took possession of the suit property, therefore, his presence before the Court is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute. 5. While dismissing the petitioner''s application, learned trial Court has observed that said Lalchand Prajapat also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC on 12/12/2013, which was opposed by the plaintiff/petitioners and after hearing the parties, the application of Lalchand was dismissed on 08/01/2015 and in such circumstances, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. 6. 5. While dismissing the petitioner''s application, learned trial Court has observed that said Lalchand Prajapat also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC on 12/12/2013, which was opposed by the plaintiff/petitioners and after hearing the parties, the application of Lalchand was dismissed on 08/01/2015 and in such circumstances, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. 6. We see no perversity or illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The impugned order is well reasoned. In the facts & circumstances of the case, presence of Lalchand before the Court is not necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. 7. It is settled legal position that the High Court can interfere in it''s power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court in exercise of it''s power of superintendence, cannot interfere with the orders of Courts subordinate to it, nor can it act as a court of appeal over the orders of the Courts subordinate to it. The Court, in exercise of it''s power of superintendence can not interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. 8. On consideration of contentions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in support of the impugned order and the pleadings taken by the petitioners, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 10. In view of above, the stay application is also dismissed.