Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1164 (RAJ)

Kalawati v. Balak Ram

2018-05-03

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "1. may kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 and application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 2. May kindly grant the costs for the filing of the present writ petition to the petitioners. 3. Any other order favourable to the petitioners may also be passed." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner is the owner of the house at ward No.6 Nagarpalika Rawatsar for which the certificate was issued on 22.07.1983 and boundaries were demarcated by the Nagarpalika Rawatsar. 3. The petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent on the ground that the property in dispute is in his ownership and possession from last 55-60 years over which he has constructed a residential house and 9 shops. The petitioner came to know that some kind of transaction of sale regarding the property in question has happened in favour of Manoj Kumar and further in favour of Heera Lal and then Sushil Kumar. Upon such information, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the said Sushil Kumar as a party. The learned court below has, however, dismissed the said application on the ground that the suit is for permanent injunction and the petitioner has not mentioned that Sushil Kumar is interfering with the possession of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is dominus litis in the suit of permanent injunction and it is an admitted fact that Sushil Kumar is having a claim over the property in question, and therefore, in the interest of justice, if he is impleaded as a party, the purpose of adjudication would be served and multiplicity of litigation shall be avoided. The learned court below has only held that the petitioner has not mentioned any direct threatfrom Sushil Kumar to possession over the property in question but once Sushil Kumar is claiming rights over the property in question, then it would be in the best interest of justice, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, that he is requried to be impleaded as a party, which shall not prejudice either of the parties in the suit in question. 5. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.02.2015 is quashed and set aside. The application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is allowed and Sushil Kumar is impleaded as party in the suit. Looking to the fact that the proceeding is pending since 2006, the learned court below is directed to expeditiously conduct the proceedings of the suit.