Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Rakesh Agarwal v. Mojas M. Singh

2024-03-01

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2024
ORDER : Avneesh Jhingan, J. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 06.11.2023 allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by the respondent No.4. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for property described therein. The petitioner-plaintiff relying upon the unregistered sale agreement dated 14.06.2021 claimed to be owner in possession of property, having purchased it from respondent No.1 & 2. 3. During the pendency, the respondent No.4 through legal representative filed an application for impleadment and produced a General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA'). Further pleaded that the suit filed by Executive Board of Methodist Church in India (hereafter 'the Church')/respondent No.4 for declaration against the respondent No.1 is pending. The application was allowed. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the respondent No.4, the Court erred in allowing the application. 5. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner lacks merit. 6. In the suit for permanent injunction the petitioner has claimed himself to be owner in possession, having purchased the property from respondent No.1 & 2 vide sale agreement dated 14.06.2021. In the suit respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is arrayed as Secretary of the respondent No.4/Church. The Civil Court rightly considering:- (i) that in view of the pleadings made in the suit that property was purchased from Secretary of the Church and pendency of other suit filed by respondent No.4 against the respondent No.1 (ii) the defendant No.1 in suit is arrayed as party in capacity of Secretary of the Church and (iii) Respondent No.4 claims to be owner of the property and pleads that applicant legal representative is the authorized representative of Church and produced GPA, held that the impleadment of respondent No.4 was necessary for deciding the issue involved in the suit. 7. There is no legal or factual error in the impugned order. 8. The petition is dismissed.