Dismissed

Kishni and Anr. v. State Urban Developmentors

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2015CW/6690/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order impleading allottees of Plot No.164/145 as necessary party defendants in a suit filed by allottees of Plot No.164/146 regarding land encroachment. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the lower court did not err, noting the dispute required issue framing on site plans.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay application were dismissed; the lower court order allowing impleadment stands affirmed.

Kishni and Anr. Vs State Urban Developmentors — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6690/2014 With Stay Application No.6089/2014

¶4

Kishni and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶5

Date of Order ::: 12.03.2015

¶6

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶7

Shri Vimal Kumar Jain, counsel for petitioners ####

¶8

By the Court :-

¶9

It is contended that during pendency of civil suit filed by plaintiff-petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant-respondents no.1 to 3, the applicants, who are the allottee of Plot No.164/145, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for their impleadment as party defendant to the suit. In the application, the applicants averred that the plaintiff-petitioners have encroached upon 1.2 square yards of land on the north-east corner of land of their Plot No.164/146 and have shown the same in the site plan of Plot No.164/145, in respect of which the suit is pending, therefore, the applicants are necessary party to the suit. Plaintiff-petitioners filed reply to the application and submitted that no relief has been claimed against the applicants. Learned lower

¶10

// 2 //

¶11

court, vide order dated 25.02.2014, allowed the application and ordered to implead them as party defendants no.4 and 5 to the suit. Hence, this writ petition filed by plaintiff-petitioners for setting aside the order dated 25.02.2014.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for plaintiffpetitioners and perused the material on record, I am of the view that learned lower court has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the application filed by applicants for their impleadment as party-defendants to the suit filed by plaintiff-petitioners. The applicants are allottee of Plot No.164/145 and they submitted the sale-deed on record along-with the site plan. The plaintiff-petitioners also submitted on record the site plan of Plot No.164/146 before learned lower court. From perusal of site plan of Plot No.164/146 the lower court found that therein the north-east corner of Plot No.164/145 has been shown dissected, whereas in the site plan submitted along-with the sale-deed by the applicants, no such corner of Plot No.164/145 has been shown to have been dissected and therefore, this dispute can be decided only after framing of issue with regard to actual position of the plots in the site plans of Plots No.164/145 and 164/146 and interest of plaintiffpetitioners would not be adversely affected in case the applicants are impleaded as party defendants to the suit, rather the applicants are necessary party to the suit and learned lower court has not

¶13

committed any error or illegality in permitting them to be impleaded as party defendants to the suit. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶14

The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.

¶15

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶16

//Jaiman//55

¶17

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶18

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Kishni and Anr. v. State Urban Developmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishni and Anr. v. State Urban Developmentors

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

Nanak Niwas Apartment Owners Vs State Urban Developmentors

Amar Chand Vs State Urban Developmentors

Ramkesh Meena Vs S B I and Anr.

Gopal Lal Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Suresh @Susya Vs State Home Departmentors

Smt Lalita Devi Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors