Dismissed

Alla Razi v. Jagmohan and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018A227/8837/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the Court dismissed the plea seeking interference with a revisional order that set aside an earlier order allowing the petitioner's legal heirs to be impleaded in a civil suit involving property rights. The Court held that the impleadment was necessary to properly adjudicate the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the revisional order was dismissed, upholding the set-aside of the earlier order allowing impleadment of heirs.

Alla Razi Vs Jagmohan and Anr. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8837 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Alla Razi Respondent :- Jagmohan And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kishore Srivastava,Pavan Kishore

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the revisional court order dated 25.9.2018 whereby the order dated 12.9.2007 passed on an application 69-Ga filed by the petitioner has been set aside by the revisional court.

¶7

The application 69-Ga was filed by the petitioner to seek deletion of the names of defendant nos.2/1 and 2/2, heirs of defendant no.2 from Original Suit No.873 of 1997, which has been filed with the relief of permanent injunction against the Cantonment Board.

¶8

The defendant no.2, Jagmohan was impleaded in the suit on an application moved by him under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with the assertion that he was a licensee to the suit property which admittedly belonged to the Cantonment Board. The petitioner, on the other hand, is pleading to be a legal occupier of the suit property.

¶9

It appears that after death of defendant no.2, a substitution application was filed by the petitioner to bring on record his heirs which was allowed vide order dated 17.1.2007 and defendant nos.2/1 and 2/2 have been substituted as legal heirs of the then alleged licensee.

¶10

It is admitted to the petitioner that at no point of time objection to the substitution application filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs to bring on record the heirs of defendant no.2 was filed by the Cantonment Board.

¶11

The prayer in application 69-Ga is in fact, a U-turn taken by the plaintiffs to say that defendant nos.2/1 and 2/2 had no concern with the suit property and in case, any permanent injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner against the Cantonment Board, the defendant nos.2/1 and 2/2 would not be affected.

¶12

This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted so as to interfere in the revisional order dated 25.9.2018.

¶13

The order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the trial court has rightly been set aside by the revisional court after appreciation as to the fact that the heirs of the alleged licensee, who were substituted on the application made by the petitioner cannot be said to be improper or unnecessary parties to the suit.

¶14

The question as to whether the suit property is in legal occupation of the petitioner or defendants 2/1 and 2/2 have any right or interest in the suit property can only be determined by the court below after evidence are led by the parties.

¶15

At the stage of impleadment/substitution, all necessary and proper parties whose presence are required for proper determination of the dispute/controversy before the Court are to be brought on record.

¶16

For the aforesaid, no interference is required in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 Jyotsana

Alla Razi v. Jagmohan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alla Razi v. Jagmohan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Manchanda Vs D.M./ Collector Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Yaseen Vs Union of India and 03 Others

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Arvind Kumar and 3 Others

Smt. Madhu Mishra @ Gudia and Another Vs Prem Kumar Mishra

Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs Surendra Kumar Agrawal and 5 Others

Sheesh Ram Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Farrukhabad and 2 Others