Allowed

Dayalji Ratnabhai Chotaliya v. Mahesh Vasantlal Pandya

Gujarat HC26 Jun 2018SCA/16751/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed a writ petition under Article 227 quashing the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to implead a party as a defendant in a civil suit concerning land disputes, finding the party necessary for complete adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application to join respondent no. 4 as defendant was quashed and set aside; permission to join respondent no. 4 was granted.

Dayalji Ratnabhai Chotaliya Vs Mahesh Vasantlal Pandya — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/16751/2015 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16751 of 2015

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶6

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶7

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶8

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶9

================================================================ DAYALJI RATNABHAI CHOTALIYA

¶10

Versus

¶11

MAHESH VASANTLAL PANDYA

¶12

================================================================

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

MR DIVANK TRIPATHI appeared for MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,4

¶15

==========================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶17

Date : 26/06/2018

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the ld. 3^rd Add. Sr.

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

C/SCA/16751/2015 JUDGMENT

¶22

Civil Judge, Jamnagar. By the said order, petitioners application below Exh.50, seeking to join the respondent no.4 herein as a party defendant has been rejected.

¶23

Brief facts are as under :

¶24

2.1 A piece of agricultural land was purchased by the father of the petitioner from one Mohan Pandya. This was so purchased on 15.02.1957, through a registered sale deed. The petitioners since then was in possession of the land.

¶25

2.2 At the instance of respondent no.4, hereinLakha Meram, in the year 2006, the Mamlatdar registered a dispute case with regard to the revenue entry which was in the favour of the petitioner. The entry no. 696 which was recorded subsequently in favour of respondent no.4, at the petitioners behest was canceled. On 12.08.2011, the respondent no. 1 made an application to the revenue authority for correction of the revenue records and mutated his name in the land which was otherwise of the petitioners. On the basis of these disputes respondent no.1 threatened the petitioner to dispose of the land in his name. In these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a Regular Civil Suit No. 395 of 2011 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents no. 1 and 3 namely one Mr. Mahesh

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

C/SCA/16751/2015 JUDGMENT

¶28

Vasantlal Pandya and the Mamlatdar, claiming right, title and interest on the subject land and also praying to protect the possession of the petitioner.

¶29

Suspecting that Lakha Mehram i.e respondent no. 4, who had earlier tried to get revenue entry made in his favour with regard to the land in question, the petitioner made an application at Exh.50, seeking the impleadment of Lakha Mehram as defendant no.4 in the Trial Court. An application was made seeking impleadment of defendant no.4. By the order impugned in the petition, even the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that nothing has been produced on record to show that the intended defendant no.4, had at some stage opposed the Mamlatdar Jodiya on the ground of limitation to the application was rejected. None of the contested parties appeared and even the then, the ld. Trial Judge rejected the application.

¶30

Mr. Divank Tripathi, ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of Premal Rachh. He has submitted that the respondent no. 4, who was proposed to be joined as defendant no.4, who was necessary party. According to him, he had tried to get the revenue entry done which was in favour of the petitioner altered in his favour. He further submitted that the ld. Trial Judge ignored the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure which suggests that, a

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

C/SCA/16751/2015 JUDGMENT

¶33

party can be added as defendant at any stage of proceedings, when the Court finds presence of that party necessary. The condition was made necessary, according to the petitioner to avoid any further dispute.

¶34

Though notice has been served nobody has appeared for respondents no.1 and 4. Essentially, therefore, what needs to be seen is that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the litigation and averments in the petition suggest that the respondent no.4 was sought to be brought in as defendant, only because previously he had sought to interfere with the ownership- title of the petitioner. In order to safeguard his interest and to do complete justice, the petitioner made an application to join the respondent no.4 as defendant no.4. No prejudice shall be caused, if such a party is added, as it can be done so at any stage of the suit. It may not be that the respondent no.4 is a necessary party, however, for the complete adjudication of the trial it was evident to permit respondent no.1 to add respondent no.4 as defendant no.4 in the suit.

¶35

Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2015, below Exh.50, passed by the ld. 3^rd Add. Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Exh.50, application seeking permission to join respondent no.4 as defendant in Regular Civil Suit no. 395 of 2011, which is pending before the Principal

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

C/SCA/16751/2015 JUDGMENT

¶38

Sr.Civil Judge, Jamnagar is allowed.

¶39

The Civil suit shall proceed further after addition of respondent no.4, herein as the defendant no.4 in such suit. There is a stay of proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.395 of 2011, pending before the ld. 3^rd Add. Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar and the same is lifted and the suit shall proceed after the respondent no.4, herein is added as defendant no.4 in the aforesaid suit. The petition is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost.

¶40

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶41

Radhika Srinivasan

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Dayalji Ratnabhai Chotaliya v. Mahesh Vasantlal Pandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayalji Ratnabhai Chotaliya v. Mahesh Vasantlal Pandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashit Surendra Kapadia Vs Rajiv Khurana

Abbaskhan Vazirkhan-Decd.Thro Heir Vs Mazdoor Trading Company

Vajubhai R Chikhaliya Vs Collector

Rajanbhai Mohanbhai Kanojiya Vs Mayaben Rajanbhai Kanojiya

Jayrambhai Nagjibhai Rabari Vs Radhe Infrastructure and Projects -E Limited

Vinod Vitthalbhai Patel Vs Shantaben D/O Jesingbhai Lallubhai and Wd/O Narsinhbhai Mathurbhai Patel