Higher Court quashed the trial court's order rejecting an application to implead a registered Dharmshala as a party. The writ petition was allowed, directing plaintiffs to file an amended suit.
Impugned order dated 24.10.2013 quashed and set aside; petitioners directed to file amended suit within one month.
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.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ORDER
Pyarelal & anr. vs. Kishan Lal Bansal & anr.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 17/2014 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by Civil Judge(JD), Laxmangarh, DistrictSikar inCivil Suit No. 47/2002-Pyarelal & anr.v. Kishan Lal.
Date of Order: 13.11.2014
HO N'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN,J.
Mr. S.S. Sunda for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Sharma for the non-petitioners.
BY THE COURT:
This petition has been filed by the plaintiffs Pyarelal and Gangadhar under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against respondent KishanLal who was defendant in Civil Suit No.24/2013 (old no. 47/2002) in the court of Civil Judge(JD), Laxmangarh, District Sikar. The learned trial court has dismissed an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC by a common order dated 24.10.2013 which has been challelanged in this petition.
I have heard arguments of both the parties. In the trial court, the plaintiffs had filed the suit against Kishan Lal because Fazilka Ashram(a Dharmshala) was being managed by Kishan Lal and he was making certain constructions in the said Dharmshala causing obstruction in the nearby road. In the written statement filed by KishanLal, it was stated that he is looking after and taking care of
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17/2014
2
Fazilka Ashram but he is doing all these works without getting any salary and it was further submitted that said Fazilka Ashram is a registered body of which no office bearer has been impleladed as a party in the suit and hence the said suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary party.
After receiving the aforesaid reply, the plaintiffs filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and Order I Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer that they be allowed to implead Kishan Lal as defendant no.1 and Fazilka Ashram( Dharmshala) Juliyasar through Mahamantri KishanLal Bansal as defendant no.2 and consequential amendments in the plaint were also prayed to be allowed.
The learned trial court has rejected the application giving no cogent reasons. When defendant Kishan Lal himself has stated in the reply that Fazilka Ashram is a registered body having office bearer also, then certainly that registered body should be allowed to be made a party in the suit and consequential amendments in the plaint should also have been allowed by the trial court. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs may ask the defendant to disclose the names of the office bearers of the said registered body and thenafter such office bearers may be made a party. At this stage, application of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Order I Rule 10 of CPC should not have been dismissed by the trial court and hence the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 of Civil Judge(JD), Laxmangarh, District Sikar deserves to be quashed and set aside and which is hereby quashed and set aside.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17/2014
3
The petition is allowed of accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. The plaintiffs-petitioners should file the amended suit in the trial court within one month from today. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately.
( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.
mlt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' applications to implead the registered Dharmshala as a necessary party.
Whether the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 in Civil Suit No. 47/2002 deserves to be quashed on grounds of non-joinder of necessary party.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pyarelal Gangadhar
Kishan Lal Bansal
Atul Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
