Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1077 (RAJ)

Devi Dayal v. Ashok Kumar

2022-04-04

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the suit was preferred by one Anoop Singh against the defendants-Ashok Kumar & Ors. He submits that the suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff Anoop Singh on 27.08.2008. He further submits that after the suit was decreed in favour of Anoop Singh, the Mutation Entries were also made in his favour and thereafter, the present petitioner purchased part of the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel argues that the learned trial court vide order dated 17.11.2011 allowed the application preferred by respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. restoring the suit at its original position setting aside the ex-parte decree. He submits that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the ex-parte decree had been set aside and when he came to knew that the original plaintiff Anoop Singh has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record, the factum of the pendency of the suit came to his knowledge and, being a bona fide purchaser of the part of the suit property, he preferred the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading him as a defendant in the matter. 4. Learned counsel submits that if the suit proceedings are decided in his absence, then he will suffer an irreparable loss. He, therefore, submits that the trial court committed an error while rejecting his application preferred for impleadment as defendant vide order dated 06.02.2019. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the present case as no relief has been sought against the present petitioner and the suit is being prosecuted by the legal representatives of Anoop Singh, who are on record. He further submits that in similar circumstances, one more purchaser of the part of the suit property preferred an application for impleadment as defendant in the present case but the learned trial court rejected his application vide order dated 18.05.2017. He further submits that in similar circumstances, one more purchaser of the part of the suit property preferred an application for impleadment as defendant in the present case but the learned trial court rejected his application vide order dated 18.05.2017. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order impugned in this case. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the order dated 06.02.2019. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and when the decree was in force, the part of the suit property was purchased by him. Further, it is on record that the ex-parte decree was set aside in the year 2011 and since then, the original plaintiff Anoop Singh was prosecuting the trial court proceedings. After the death of Anoop Singh in the year 2018, the legal representatives of Anoop Singh have been brought on record and now they are proceeding with the matter before the trial court and the learned trial court observed that the suit proceedings are almost on the verge of completion as only final arguments remain to be done in the case as the evidence and other proceedings have already been completed. Since the suit is being prosecuted before the learned trial court on behalf of the legal representatives of Anoop Singh and no relief is sought against the present petitioner, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment as a defendant vide its order dated 06.02.2019. 8. In view of the discussions made above, no interference in the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned trial court is warranted by this Court. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.