Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2059 (RAJ)

Anoop Singh v. Hari Singh

2022-07-19

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 04.07.2018, whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed and the applicants who moved application for impleadment in suit as defendants namely Surendra Singh and others have been arrayed as defendants of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner has filed suit against defendant Hari Singh, State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Bharatpur and one Sandeep, wherein prayer was made for decreeing the suit in the nature of permanent injunction and restraining the defendants from dispossessing the petitioner and further not to create any hindrance in use of the said property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed and the petitioners raised objection about impleadment of these persons as party in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said land exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and as such restraint order was sought from the Court below and the applicants were not necessary party in the suit as any independent right, which was claimed by them, was to be agitated in independent suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has expressed its view by holding that there is a Well and a public way in the disputed property and as such while considering rights of the applicants to use the Way & Well, the applicants being residents of nearby colony, have been permitted to be arrayed as defendants in the suit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below ought to have considered that necessary parties in the suit were already impleaded by the petitioner-plaintiff and it was responsibility of the State-District Collector to see that no interference was caused in the use of the property, which exclusively belongs to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of permanent injunction, if the State is party as defendant, there is no requirement of any other person to be impleaded as party in the suit and as such counsel places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of LRs of late Nanak Ram Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st Class, Taranagar & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 907. 8. Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st Class, Taranagar & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 907. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if at all applicants want to claim there independent right, the proper course for them is not by way of impleadment in the suit filed by the plaintiff, they are always at liberty to claim their right independently by filing a separate suit and as such strangers to the litigation, cannot be made parties. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below has failed to take into account that right of the plaintiff-petitioner was to be independently examined qua the right claimed by the private respondents-defendants in the suit and no third party should be permitted to be impleaded as party. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State Authorities and the said suit was later on withdrawn after written statement was filed by the State Authorities, whereby the fact of exclusive ownership was disputed by not admitting the claim of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel submitted that once stand of the State Government in written statement was brought into notice of the Civil Court, the petitioner, later on, withdrew the said suit. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the various reports, which have been filed by the different Authorities, nowhere admits that the suit property belongs exclusive to the petitioner-plaintiff and on the contrary, stand of the StateAuthorities is with regard to use of public way and use of Well by the residents of nearby colony and the said piece of land has never been treated to be in exclusive ownership and title of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Court below has passed the order on the premise that multiplicity of the litigation has to be avoided and if the persons, whose rights are directly affected by the prayer sought by the plaintiff-petitioner, in such eventuality, the persons whose rights are affected, should be made party in the suit itself. 15. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. 15. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. This Court finds that the Court below has taken into account the fact that dispute between the parties is with regard to ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the petitioner, as claimed by him. 17. This Court further finds that the Court below has also considered the report of the Tehsildar, which had clearly mentioned that the suit property did not belong to the petitionerplaintiff exclusively and on the contrary, the report said that there is a Well and a public way, which is used by other residents of the nearby colony including the applicants and as such the Court below found that the parties in the suit need not be only the original defendants but also persons whose rights might be affected by grant of prayer in favour of the petitioner, the same should be made party before the Court below for adjudicating the dispute raised between the parties. 18. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the State is a party and as such there is no requirement of other persons to be impleaded and reliance placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of LRs of late Nanak Ram Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st Class, Taranagar & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the issue with regard to rights of the other residents of the colony or other affected persons were not raised before the Court. 19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that independent ownership suit should have been filed by the applicants if they want to claim their independent right over the disputed property and as such the applicants in the garb of establishing their own rights, cannot be permitted to intervene, this Court finds that stand of the State Authorities is not to admit the exclusive possession and title of the petitioner in respect of the suit property and as such other persons who were deriving some benefits or were using the right of way or use of Well, cannot be asked for filing any independent suit. 20. The reason assigned by the lower Court is to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and as such reasoning/methods adopted by the Lower Court, cannot said to be faulty. 21. 20. The reason assigned by the lower Court is to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and as such reasoning/methods adopted by the Lower Court, cannot said to be faulty. 21. This Court accordingly finds that no error is committed by the Court below in passing the order and accordingly the petition stands dismissed. All the pending applications shall stand disposed of.