In a civil writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court refused to interfere with an order allowing joinder of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC due to a related pending suit. The writ petition was dismissed summarily.
The writ petition was dismissed summarily.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10083/2007. Kehar Singh. VERSUS
A.D.J. (F.T.) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others.
11.09.2008.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH
Mr.M.M.Ranjan, for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the application (Annexure-3) filed under Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) C.P.C. filed by the applicant Kaushalya Dargani and Surendra Dargani.
The dispute between the parties i.e. the plaintiffpetitioner on the one hand and the applicants on the other hand is in respect of the site which is adjacent to the shop of the applicants which is shop No.155, as mentioned in the application and the piece of land for which the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffpetitioner claiming that he is the tenant over the said property which is abutting to the door of the applicant has a material bearing in so far as the applicants had earlier filed a suit in the year 2002 against the Manager of the Dharamshala, defendant in the present suit, being Suit No.604/2004 [Kaushalya Dargani Vs. Lal Chand Agarwal] which is pending and in which an interim order has also been passed on the application for temporary injunction on 23.09.2003, as mentioned in the said application at para 3. Therefore, it cannot
2
be said that on the basis of the averments which have been made in the application that the applicant Kaushalya Dargani and Surendra Dargani are not liable to be affected by any decree that may be passed in the present suit.
In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.
(DALIP SINGH),J.
Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order allowing joining of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kehar Singh
A.D.J. (F.T.) No.9, Jaipur City
Others
Dalip Singh
Solanki DS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
