Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1270 (HP)

Jagdishwar Nath v. Deep Kumar

2018-07-11

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 1.8.2016(Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, In Civil Suit No.166 of 2011, titled as Deep Kumar Versus Om Prakash and others, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, came to be dismissed, present petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1.8.2016 and allow the application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that prior to filing of instant civil Suit No.166 of 2011, civil Suit No.42 of 1981, titled as Om Prakash versus Jagdishwar Nath and others was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d). Learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.1983, decreed the suit having been filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d). 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, dated 30.6.1983, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu and thereafter in this Court bearing RSA No.119 of 1990, however fact remains that both the appeals were dismissed and as such, judgment and decree dated 30.6.1983, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu attained finality. 4. By way of present civil suit No.166 of 2011, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration that judgment and decree dated 30.6.1983, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu, was obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d) by way of concealment of facts. Plaintiffs in the suit at hand not impleaded the present petitioners as party respondent, whereas petitioners by way of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC sought their impleadment on the ground that since their predecessor-in-interest were party to the earlier suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d), plaintiffs in the instant case, i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 ought to have impleaded them as party respondents for proper adjudication of the case. 5. 5. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the instant civil suit filed by respondents No.1 to 3, this Court finds force in the arguments of Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 3 that since no relief, whatsoever has been claimed against the present petitioners, there is/was no requirement to implead them as party respondents and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Having carefully perused the contents of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-3), this Court finds that there is no plausible explanation rendered on record by the present petitioners for their impleadment, rather simple averment has been made that since their predecessor-in-interest were party in earlier suit, they ought to have been impleaded as party respondents, which explanation/ reasoning in my considered view is not sufficient to order for impleadment of the present petitioners as party respondents. In earlier civil suit bearing No.42 of 1981 having been filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d), predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners had set up a case that they are owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of will dated 19.4.1962, but as has been noticed above, their aforesaid plea was not accepted by the Civil Court and suit having been filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d) was decreed, which has already attained finality. Since, in the suit at hand, respondents No. 1 to 3 have laid specific challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 30.6.1983, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu, which is admittedly in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4(a) to 4(d), this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned court below that since no relief, whatsoever has been claimed against the present petitioners, there is no requirement to implead them as party respondents. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Court below and as such, same is upheld. The present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.