Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1956 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. Municipal Corporation Jodhpur

2021-10-18

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.03.2019, whereby learned Additional District Judge, No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Trial Court') has allowed the respondents' impleadment application dated 27.11.2018. 2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction, inter alia, stating that his predecessor and after him, the petitioner has been having possession over the land and thus, the Municipal Corporation be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. 3. During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the respondents Nos.4 to 12 herein moved an impleadment application, inter alia, stating that the subject land is covered by a patta granted in favour of their predecessors Rampyari Devi and Shanti Devi and any order passed in the suit will adversely affect their rights and hence, they are necessary parties in the suit. 4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the applicants and the petitioner, allowed the impledment application so filed and impleaded them as defendants. 5. Challenging the order dated 02.03.2019, Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Trial Court has erred in allowing impleadment application filed by the respondents Nos.4 to 12. He argued that the respondents' application dated 27.11.2018 was misconceived, as they had no right to be impleaded as parties in a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) which was essentially against the wrongful actions of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. 6. It was further argued that the respondents have filed impleadment application belatedly when the suit has reached the final stage, particularly when the applicants were aware of the pendency of the suit. He argued that the impleadment application deserved to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Panchariya, on the other hand, argued that the applicants have specifically averred that the disputed land is covered by a patta granted in favour of their predecessors and after their death the respondents are having possession over the said property. He argued that respondents Nos.4 to 12 are necessary parties in the suit in question. 8. It was also argued that in the absence of respondents Nos.4 to 12, any order passed by the Trial Court, will prejudically affect their rights. 9. Mr. He argued that respondents Nos.4 to 12 are necessary parties in the suit in question. 8. It was also argued that in the absence of respondents Nos.4 to 12, any order passed by the Trial Court, will prejudically affect their rights. 9. Mr. Soni, in rejoinder, contended that the averments made in the impleadment application are factually incorrect and further added that the Collector has cancelled the patta which was granted in favour of Rampyari Devi and Shanti Devi. 10. Mr. Panchariya, on the other hand, submitted that the assertion made by Mr. Soni that the patta has been cancelled, is factually incorrect. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 02.03.2019, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial court has committed no error of law in impleading the respondents Nos.4 to 12 as defendants in the suit proceedings. The fact as to whether the newly arrayed defendants are having title or any right over the property is to be determined by the Trial Court on the basis of rival pleadings and documentary and oral evidence to be led before the Court. 11. The applicants have placed before the Trial Court enough material to show their prima facie right over the subject land. 12. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned order while exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Ors. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 . 13. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 14. The stay application also stands disposed of.