Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1754 (RAJ)

Asha Gupta v. Nagar Nigam

2021-09-17

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
ORDER 1. The writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.08.2021 whereby the applicant-Pooja Gupta daughter of the petitioner No.l has been directed to be impleaded as a party in a suit preferred by the petitioners for permanent injunction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application moved by the applicant-Pooja Gupta-respondent No.3 was wholly misconceived. She cannot be said to be necessary orproper party to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners by filing of a plaint as against the Nagar Nigam seeking permanent injunction to restrain the Nagar Nigam from taking possession or demolition of the suit property owned by the petitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that although the applicant had filed a separate suit for partition relating to the same properties, in the present case the petitioners-plaintiffs are only seeking relief as against the Nagar Nigam and the applicant-respondent No.3 is totally a stranger to the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners are the dominus litis to the suit and it is at their will and discretion to implead the person as a party. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and others : Civil Appeal No.5918 of 2012 and another connected appeal decided on 21.08.2012 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in relation to a person who may be impleaded as a party. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. This Court finds that vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021, the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur has taken into consideration the contents of the application which shows that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the property in question in the suit and a dispute has already been raised by the concerned applicant respondent No.3 by filing a partition suit. The contention raised by the petitioner No.l in her suit that she is the owner of the property is being contested by the applicant-respondent No.3 by moving an application for being impleaded as a party. 6. In view thereof, learned Court has proceeded to hold that she is a proper and necessary party to the suit and her application was allowed. 7. 6. In view thereof, learned Court has proceeded to hold that she is a proper and necessary party to the suit and her application was allowed. 7. In the case of Vidur Impex and Traders (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down principles which should govern disposal of application for impleadment as under:- "36. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment."? 8. Keeping in view Clause 3 as above, this Court finds that the applicant is to be treated as a proper party and would be helpful in disposal and adjudication of all matters and issues which may be involved in the present suit. 8. Keeping in view Clause 3 as above, this Court finds that the applicant is to be treated as a proper party and would be helpful in disposal and adjudication of all matters and issues which may be involved in the present suit. More so, as the partition suit is also pending between the parties, it would be appropriate for the Court to give an opportunity of hearing to the newly impleaded respondent/s. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, dated 04.08.2021 is upheld. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.