WRIT PETITION for revision against order allowing revision against impleadment application in original suit for permanent injunction dismissed. Court held applicants lacked prima facie evidence of possession and were not necessary parties; impleadment application properly set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6990 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Swaroop Respondent :- Ram Prapanna And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Deen Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Chaube
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 3.8.2019, by which the revisional court has allowed the revision and has set aside the order dated 11.12.2018, whereby the trial court allowed the impleadment application of the petitioner and other persons (hereinafter referred to as 'applicants') for their impleadment as party defendants in Original Suit No. 135 of 2016.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. for permanent prohibitory injunction alleging that assami patta was executed by the land management committee in their favour. During the pendency of the suit, the applicants applied for impleadment claiming that they are in possession of the suit property. The trial court, without referring to any prima facie evidence regarding possession of the applicants, allowed the application by a cryptic order dated 11.12.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffrespondents filed a revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The revisional court has held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to implead persons against whom he has no grievance. It has also been observed that in case the applicants have any interest in the suit land they can bring their own suit. The revisional court has concluded by holding that the applicants are not necessary parties so as to entitle them to seek impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely upon a statement given by Tahsildar in proceedings under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to buttress the submission that the applicants are in possession of the suit land. However, he does not dispute that the said statement was not filed before the trial court.Consequently, this Court is not inclined to consider a document which admittedly is not part of the record of the trial court.
Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that except for the bald assertion made by the applicants in their application that they are in possession of suit land, they did not file any prima facie evidence to prove their possession or any other right, title or interest. The revisional court has rightly concluded by holding that the applicants are not necessary and proper parties and in case they have any interest in the suit land, it is open to them to bring their own suit.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Chandan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether applicants claiming possession of suit land are necessary parties entitled to impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in a permanent injunction suit.
Whether revisional court was right in setting aside trial court order allowing impleadment without prima facie evidence of possession.
Whether statements not filed before trial court can be relied upon for impleadment application in High Court writ proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Swaroop
Ram Prapanna
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
