Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application to implead the Gaon Sabha under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction. The High Court found no evidence that the Gaon Sabha was a necessary party or that the wall was on its property, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition under Article 227 is dismissed
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137394
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5689 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Manju And Another Respondent :- Kripal Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Set aside the judgment and order dated 16.7.2022 (Annexure No. 8) and 31.3.2023(Annexure No.10) and allow the application dated 29.1.2019 (paper No. Ga-34). "
It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants restraining them from demolishing his boundary wall. It is stated that in the aforesaid suit, an application paper No. 34-Ga was filed by the defendantspetitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Gaon Sabha on the allegation that it is a necessary party. By the impugned order dated 16.7.2022, the trial court rejected the application on the ground that no document was filed by the petitioners-defendants to demonstrate that the Gaon Sabha was a necessary party. The statement of the plaintiff was also noticed that the present village Pradhan is not creating any hindrance. The aforesaid order rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was challenged in revision filed by the defendants-petitioners in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor in Civil Revision No. 99 of 2022 which was dismissed by the order impugned dated 31.3.2023.
The revisional court noted the contentions of the counsel for the respective parties as well as the Commission Report (paper No. 14-Ga) , in which it was reflected that the boundary wall was shown therein as an old boundary wall. After noting the observation made by the trial court, the revision was dismissed.
It is noted that no application was filed by the Gaon Sabha in the aforesaid suit and neither could the petitioners-defendants demonstrate before the trial court or revisional court whether the Gaon Sabha was the necessary party. Even in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any document
that could evince that the boundary wall of the plaintiff-respondent is situated on the property of the Gaon Sabha.
Under the circumstances, there is no illegality or error in the orders impugned that would merit interference.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.7.2023 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J)
Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned orders rejecting the application to implead the Gaon Sabha as a necessary party.
Whether the petitioners demonstrated that the boundary wall was situated on the property of the Gaon Sabha to justify impleading it.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Manju And Another
Kripal Singh
Jayant Banerji
Syed Faheem Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
