Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 133 (RAJ)

Shraddhanand v. Pushpa Sharma

2018-01-09

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. In both the writ petitions, the order dated 25/08/2017 passed by the trial court is under challenge, one is in relation to the application moved by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC and the other is with regard to the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 2. Both the applications moved by the petitioners have been rejected by the trial court. 3. With regard to the order passed by the trial court on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are defendants in the suit and they have moved an application for impleading Rajasthan Financial Corporation as a party. It is submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents is based on purchase of land and property in auction from Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the sale deed which the defendants have executed is sought to be cancelled. 4. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the property which is vested in the plaintiffs is through Rajasthan Financial Corporation and in the suit itself, the plaintiffs have mentioned of such a fact. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the prayer made in the suit, the Rajasthan Financial corporation is a necessary and proper party and was required to be impleaded. However, the trial court has fallen in error in not impleading the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it would be necessary to implead the Rajasthan Financial Corporation as a party to reach to the just conclusion. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to submit that the Court ought to implead a party to the suit where the Court finds it necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit and therefore, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation was required to be impleaded as a party. 6. Per-Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that the plaintiffs-respondents have stepped in the shoes of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation after having purchased the property from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the auction. The issues have already been framed and the onus is upon the plaintiffs-respondents to prove their case. 6. Per-Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that the plaintiffs-respondents have stepped in the shoes of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation after having purchased the property from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the auction. The issues have already been framed and the onus is upon the plaintiffs-respondents to prove their case. He is dominus-litis to the case and is not required to implead Rajasthan Financial Corporation as a party. The consequence of non-impleadment, if any, shall be suffered by the plaintiffs-respondents alone. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners had submitted their written statement way back on 29/11/2011 as is apparent from Annexure-3 while the plaintiffs respondents had filed their reply on 07/05/2014 and no such objection has been taken therein. After a lapse of three years thereafter, the present application has been moved with the purpose to delay the proceedings. 8. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioners are none-else but the original owners of one Company namely; Khandela Woolen Mills Ltd. and the said Mill was taken over under Section 29 by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, where-after the property of the said Mill was sold in auction and the measurement of the area of the said Mill was 20000 Square Yards in Khasra No.731. The plaintiffs- respondents had purchased the said property, however, they came to know of the petitioners having sold the said land illegally by executing a sale deed and therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents had to file a civil suit for the purpose of declaration. Thus, it is submitted that while the suit is pending since 2011, even the application for injunction has not been decided by the court below on account of the applications being filed by the defendants petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not Directors of the said Mill but are the Khatedars of the land which is adjoining the land of 20000 square yards for which they are contesting the suit and they are in possession of the said adjoining land. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is yet to be examined by the trial court and it would not be in the interest of justice to make any comment relating to the contentions of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents or otherwise. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is yet to be examined by the trial court and it would not be in the interest of justice to make any comment relating to the contentions of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents or otherwise. However, while examining the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no reason for allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment the Rajasthan Financial Corporation as a party which is completely stranger to the suit proceedings which are in the nature of declaration and cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants-petitioners in favour of another party. Neither the Rajasthan Financial Corporation can be said to be a necessary nor a proper party for disposal and adjudication of the present dispute relating to cancellation of sale deed. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are not meant to enlarge scope of the suit and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, (1963) AIR(Supreme Court) 786, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. The application for impleadment was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned trial court. 11. As regards the application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC moved by the petitioners for calling for the documents from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is concerned, this Court finds that the trial court has already examined the application and found that the issues have already been framed on 30/07/2016 specifying the onus of proof on each issue. The onus has been put on the specific parties. If the parties want to produce any particular document in support of their contention, they are always free to do so and in the circumstances, the requirement to call for record from Rajasthan Financial Corporation has not been found to be justified. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents were required to show that the property, which was auctioned, was only to the extent of the land measuring 20000 square yards. The documents relating to sale, purchase and auction of property would be necessary for the purpose of the petitioners' defence. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents were required to show that the property, which was auctioned, was only to the extent of the land measuring 20000 square yards. The documents relating to sale, purchase and auction of property would be necessary for the purpose of the petitioners' defence. 13. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel, this Court finds that the said application is misconceived. The application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC can only be filed in the circumstances as stated therein and not for the purpose of procuring evidence of the parties and for justification of their stand. Moreover, it is for the plaintiffs-respondents to prove their case before the learned trial court and it is for them to prove their everments. In the circumstances, there is no occasion which can be said to have arisen for moving application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC and the same appears to be a dilatory tactics. 14. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents prays that the suit be directed to be decided at the earliest as having been filed in 2011. 16. Taking into consideration that the suit has been pending for last six years now, the learned trial court is expected to decide the suit expeditiously and not later than one year henceforth.