Dismissed

Suresh Kumawat and Anr. v. Addi Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2008CW/9499/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an order allowing the impleadment of respondents 5 to 20 in a civil suit. The petitioner argued these defendants had filed a separate injunction suit regarding an election dispute and were thus unnecessary. The High Court held that the trial court did not commit an error of law in impleading them.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

Suresh Kumawat and Anr. Vs Addi Civil Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9499/2007. Date of order : 7/2/2008.

¶2

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶3

Shri Satish Chandra Mittal for the petitioner. ******

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 14/9/2007 whereby the application filed by respondents No.5 to 20 for their impleadment in the civil suit in question was allowed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the newly impleaded defendants had on their own showing filed a separate injunction suit in respect of the election dispute of respondent No.2 Society. When they have availed of the remedy in other suit, they were not necessary party in the present suit. Learned trial court has erred in law in allowing the application. Order is therefore liable to be setaside.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned-order as also the other material forming part of the petition, I find that when the injunction suit in question was filed on 21/3/2007, newly impleaded respondents in para 3 of their application have pleaded that the election of the society had already taken place on 18/3/2007 and the result was declared on the same day and they were administered the oath of the office on 21/3/2002. On

¶8

SBCWP NO.9499/2007.

¶9

( 2 )

¶10

perusal of clause (b) of the prayer clause in the plaint, it is evident that one of the prayers that has been made by the plaintiff is that the defendant be restrained from holding election and illegally administering oath of office to the newly elected office bearers. This prayer when examined with the contention of the newly impleaded defendant that originally impleaded defendants were in collusion with the plaintiff and injunction order after the election was passed behind their back, trial of the suit should not be allowed to proceed in their absence.

¶11

In the circumstances, I do not find that the trial court has committed any error of law in impleading respondents No.5 to 20 as party defendants.

¶12

The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶13

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶14

anil/-

Suresh Kumawat and Anr. v. Addi Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumawat and Anr. v. Addi Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ruksana Vs the Addi District Judge No 3

Fazal Noor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kailash Bai Vs the Addi District Judge No 3

Ninua Ram Vs Addi District Judge No 2 and O

Managing Commitee Gaur Vipra S Vs Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari and or