Dismissed

Ishwar Lal v. Adj NO.4, Jaipur City

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2008CW/9695/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in an eviction suit. The High Court found the trial court correctly held that the joint family property issue was not raised in the suit and disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an independent suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file an independent suit for partition or declaration of rights.

Ishwar Lal Vs Adj NO.4, Jaipur City — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9695/06
Ishwar Lal Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge No.4,
Japur & Ors.

¶3

Date of order : 11/2/2008.

¶4

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶5

Shri Mohammed Anees for the petitioner.
******

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the

¶7

petitioner.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed
against the order dated 19.10.06 whereby
the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his
impleadment as defendant in the suit filed
by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 against

¶9

the defendant no.3 and 4 has been
dismissed. The aforesaid suit was filed
by the plaintiff against the defendants on
the ground that they were residing in
quarter nos.593 and 594 as its licensees
and therefore a decree of eviction be

¶10

¶11

passed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that these two houses were family
property of the petitioner and the
respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 who are all
brothers. It was argued that in fact these
houses were allotted to their father when
the family was displaced from that part of
the country which was formed as Pakistan
in 1947. Though the plaintiff was elder
amongst all four brothers, but he cannot
claim to be a sole owner of the two
houses.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the impugned
order, I find that the suit in question
was filed with the limited prayer that the
defendants / respondents were licensees of
the plaintiff and they should be evicted.
Learned trial court has observed while
rejecting the application of the plaintiff

¶14

¶15

that the question whether properties were
of joint family and that whether each of
the brother had share in the property was
neither raised in the subject suit nor was
subject matter of examination of the
Court. It is made clear that petitioner
would have the liberty to file an

¶16

independent suit either for partition or
for declaration of his rights and the
judgment that may be rendered in the
aforesaid suit filed by respondent no.2

¶17

would not in any manner affect his

¶18

interest in the suit that may now be filed
by him.

¶19

reason to interfere with the order of the
learned trial court.

¶20

With these observations, the writ
petition is disposed of.

¶21

RS/

Ishwar Lal v. Adj NO.4, Jaipur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Lal v. Adj NO.4, Jaipur City

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

Smt. Sada Kanwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Dhan Vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma

Sushil Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jitendra Nagar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rekhraj Pareek and Ors. Vs Sh.Niwas and Ors.

Iliyas Vs State of Raj and Ors.