Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1976 (RAJ)

Nijamuddin v. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur

2018-09-25

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') is aggrieved of the order dated 18-7-2018 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.4 Jaipur Metropolitan in civil suit No.53/2018 whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading the applicant-respondent No.3 (hereafter 'the applicant') as defendant has been allowed. 2. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that applicant had no concern whatsoever with the land in the plaintiff's possession or the issue in his suit for permanent injunction and was not entitled to be impleaded as a defendant therein. In support of his contention, counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the order dated 27.3.2012 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15956/2010 (Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti vs. Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal & Ors.) as also the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal and Another vs. Nagar Palika Nigam and Khandwa and Another reported in 2001 (3) MPHT 320 . 3. Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 defended the impugned order dated 18.7.2018 stating it to be just and proper. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. The impugned order dated 18.7.2018 indicates that the trial court has allowed the applicant's application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and its impleadment as defendant for the reason that from the documents annexed with the application, prima-facie it transpired that the plaintiff had encroached on government land outside the applicant's institution and due to the encroachment aforesaid, the applicant's rights were adversely effected as plaintiff was causing obstruction in access to the applicant's institution. In this view of the matter, the trial court was of the view that the applicant was entitled to be impleaded as a party-defendant in the plaintiff's suit to enable it effectually and completely facilitate the settlement and determination of the question involved therein. 6. The order dated 27.3.2012 passed in the case of Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti (supra) relied upon by counsel for the plaintiff to impugn the trial court's order dated 18.7.2018 is opposite to the instant case. In the said writ petition, the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal rejecting the applicant-petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was under challenge. In the said writ petition, the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by JDA Appellate Tribunal rejecting the applicant-petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was under challenge. Contrarily in the instant case, the dated 18.7.2018 allowing the applicant's application under Order 1, Rule 10 and impleading him as a party-defendant in the plaintiff's suit is impugned. This court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India interferes only if the order impugned is vitiated by error or jurisdiction, perversity and patent illegality leading to manifest injustice. That assessment of the court is a finding of fact in each case. Merely because the court in another case in a wholly distinct fact situation upheld an order of dismissal of an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, it does not automatically entail that it should interfere in all cases, irrespective of factual scenario obtaining, where an applicant has been impleaded by a trial court on an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. That is perverse logic to advocate and an unprofessional argument without legal nuance which the Court hereby rejects. 7. I am of the considered view that in the facts obtaining the applicant definitely had an interest in the outcome of the plaintiff's suit for injunction. The trial court had ample discretion to implead it as a party in the suit. That discretion in the facts of the case cannot be held to be perverse, capricious or leading to the plaintiff's manifest injustice. The trigger for invoking the court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is thus wholly absent. 8. In the circumstances, I cannot find any good ground to warrant interference therewith under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed. 10. The trial court is directed to decide the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction within twelve months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Further, it is directed as prayed for by counsel for the plaintiff that the newly impleaded defendant no.3 ought not be allowed to set up a case in defence which would change the nature of the suit.