Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 92 (RAJ)

Omprakash v. Kanchan Devi

2018-01-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, the same is allowed. The applicant/legal representative, as mentioned in the application, is impleaded as party respondent in this case. The amended cause title already filed is taken on record. 2. Since learned counsel Mr. Prateek Rohiwal is already appearing on behalf of the newly added respondents, therefore, the service is complete. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 4. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers: "1. That the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by learned District Court, Jodhpur District, in Civil Misc. "A" 77/2016 allowing the application under Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant." 5. The petitioner had filed civil suit bearing No. 37/2007 for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Pipar City, District Jodhpur regarding the land of Ravla Nohra, which was in possession of the plaintiff/petitioner for last forty years and the petitioner was running a private school in the said land. 6. The non-petitioner No. 1 also filed a civil suit bearing No. 46/2011 (737/2010) before the learned District Judge, District Jodhpur. The non-petitioner No. 1 also filed a civil misc. application alongwith Civil Original Suit No. 46/2011 (737/2010). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Smt. Saroj v. Srikishan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Appl. No. 37/2012 decided on 17.12.2012), whereby this Hon'ble Court had rejected the transfer application on the ground that the valuable remedy of the petitioner therein shall be affected, in case transfer of the matter to the higher court is permitted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent however, has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order and stated that the same is well reasoned, as continuance of the suit before two different forums would lead to multiplicity of litigation and shall also result into a fair chance of diversity of opinions. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent however, has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order and stated that the same is well reasoned, as continuance of the suit before two different forums would lead to multiplicity of litigation and shall also result into a fair chance of diversity of opinions. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that that aforecited precedent law is applicable in the present case, as the learned court below has dealt with the proposition and has come to the conclusion that since the dispute is pertaining to the same property, therefore, the adjudication of the same right before two different judicial forums shall be prejudicial to the interest of justice. 10. It is also clear that if the same dispute is adjudicated at two different places, then it shall only amount to multiplicity of litigation, but also shall unnecessarily take the energy of both the parties, and shall create burden on the system. 11. The joinder is always permissible, in cases where the adjudication is pertaining to the same land, by exercising the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is justifiable. 12. This Court is also of the opinion that though the previous suit had been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and the subsequent suit had been filed by the respondent, but in the peculiar circumstances, the doctrine of res sub-judice of operating the first suit cannot be exercised, as the first suit is before the Civil Judge and the subsequent suit is before the District Judge. 13. In these circumstances, the impugned order is justified as the contest of the case before one particular forum in accordance with the order passed by the learned court below on 14.02.2017 shall prejudice the rights of the petitioner on merits. 14. In light of the above, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 15. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.