This petition prayed to quash a rejection of an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The Court held no manifest error was committed, as the petitioner's earlier decreed suits pertained to a different property than the one in dispute in the cited proceedings.
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. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44509 of 2011 Petitioner :- Asgar Ali Respondent :- Iqbal Ali And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra S. Pandey
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri D.N. Pandey holding brief of Sri Birendra S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant - petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order 5.5.2011 in P.A. Case No. 55 of 2008 (Iqbal Ali Qureshi Vs. Raj Pal Sahani & others) passed by the Prescribed Authority / Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 6, Agra whereby the application No. 104-Ga filed by the applicant - petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant - petitioner is the owner and landlord of the disputed property and in respect thereof, he filed P.A. Case No. 04 of 1999 and also Suit No. 86 of 2008 which both were decreed in favour of the applicant - petitioner in respect of one of the same property i.e. the disputed property. Therefore, the Court below committed manifest error of law to reject the impleadment application. He submits that the applicant - petitioner is the owner and landlord of the disputed property.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find no substance in it.
The P.A. Case No. 55 of 2008 was filed by the applicant - petitioner against the tenant in respect of House No. 28/111-A, Gudari Mansoor Khan, Agra. The Case No. 86 of 2008 was also filed in respect of House No. 28/111-A Gudari Mansoor Khan, Agra. Both the aforesaid cases were decreed in respect of the aforesaid house i.e. House No. 28/111-A Gudari Mansoor
Khan, Agra. The applicant - petitioner received possession under Dakhalnama dated 7.6.2010 in which the boundaries of the aforesaid property i.e. House No. 28/111-A, are mentioned as under:-
" East - House No. 28/111, West - Road, North - Rasta and South - Jaydad Shobha Jain "
Thus, from the judgment in the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 04 of 1999 and the Suit No. 86 of 2008 filed by the applicant - petitioner and from the aforesaid possession memo, it is evident that the aforesaid two cases were filed by the applicant - petitioner in respect of House No. 28/111-A and not in respect of House No. 28/111 which was the disputed property in P.A. Case No. 55 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff - respondent. In the impugned order, the Court below has also reached to the same conclusion which is based on documentary evidences on record. Therefore, the Court below has not committed any manifest error of law to reject the impleadment application of the petitioner in P.A. Case No. 55 of 2008 relating to the House No. 28/111.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Arif
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned court committed manifest error of law in rejecting the impleadment application for a property distinct from the one regarding which the petitioner had earlier decreed suits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Asgar Ali
Iqbal Ali
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
