Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2818 (RAJ)

Kushal Singh v. Urban Improvement Trust

2019-11-08

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.08.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court"), in an appeal filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (respondent No.1 herein). 2. The facts appertain to the present case are that the plaintiff Shri Dinesh Kothari filed a suit for injunction against the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, which was decreed vide order dated 25.09.1999 and an injunction was granted in his favour, restraining the defendant No.1-respondent No.1-Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur from interfering in his possession of land admeasuring 20.250 sq. feet. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decree, the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur, during the pendency of appeal, plaintiff transferred 9000 sq. feet land to Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. Said Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. later transferred 2400 sq. feet land to the present petitioner - Kushal Singh. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. which had purchased 9000/- sq. feet land from the original plaintiff, moved an application on 10.08.2017 and sought its impleadment, which application was allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 08.08.2018. 4. The present petitioner having right, title and interest over 2400 sq. feet land, also moved an application seeking his impleadment in the subject appeal. 5. The Appellate Court rejected petitioner's impleadment application in the appeal, inter alia, observing that the petitioner's right would be governed by the principles of lis pendence embodied under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Mr. Prashant Tatia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order impugned dated 08.08.2018, contended that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting petitioner's application while the impleadment application of his predecessor in title - Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. had already been allowed by it. 7. He further argued that if order aforesaid is allowed to stand, it would prejudicialy affect the rights of the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. 9. Indisputably, petitioner's application under consideration was filed after the Appellate Court allowed the impleadment application of Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. Though both of them have acquired interest almost at the same time. 10. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. 9. Indisputably, petitioner's application under consideration was filed after the Appellate Court allowed the impleadment application of Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. Though both of them have acquired interest almost at the same time. 10. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 08.08.2018, passed by the learned Court below on various counts: firstly, the present writ petition has been preferred after more than a year of the date when the impugned order was passed; Secondly, if the petitioner was so concerned about his impleadment, he ought to have moved impleadment application within reasonable time, given the fact that his predecessor in title Hanu Buildcon Private Ltd. had moved an application seeking impleadment on 06.04.2017 and the same came to be allowed by the Appellate Court on 10.08.2017. This clearly shows that the petitioner having purchased the property on 03.03.2015 was sleeping over his purported rights. 11. That apart, the reasoning given by the Appellate Court that the petitioner's right would be governed by the principles of lis pendence, is also infallible. 12. This Court does not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the order impugned, passed by the learned Appellate Court. 13. The writ petition therefore fails. 14. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.