Allowed

Smt Gyan Kaur v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2016CW/1414/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order impleading Surjeet Singh as a necessary party in an appeal. The Court held the Board failed to apply its mind to the necessity of impleadment beyond the plaintiff's consent and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 06.01.2016 and remand the matter to the Board for fresh decision within four months.

Smt Gyan Kaur Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1414/2016 (Smt. Gyan Kaur Vs. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.)

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R

¶4

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1414/2016

¶6

(Smt. Gyan Kaur Vs. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.)

¶7

Date of Order : 03.02.2016

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶9

Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, for the petitioner-defendant. Mr. Prabhati Lal on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, for respondent-applicant.

¶10

BY THE COURT

¶11

Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 06.01.2016, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Considered.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, appearing for the petitionerdefendant (hereinafter “the defendant”) has submitted that by the impugned order dated 06.01.2016 the Board of Revenue has mechanically impleaded the respondent-applicant Surjeet Singh (hereinafter “the applicant”) as party in a pending appeal before the RAA, Kota arising from the order dated 25.04.2014, passed by the SDO, Kota rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent-plaintiff Deewan Singh (hereinafter “the plaintiff”) on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Board merely on consent of the plaintiff, without applying its mind to the question as to whether the applicant—Surjeet Singh was a necessary and proper party on which count alone he could have been impleaded.

¶13

Mr. Prabhati Lal appearing for Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, counsel for the respondent-applicant has however supported the impugned order but without pointing out any fact where-from the applicant could be treated as a necessary and proper party. He has

¶14

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1414/2016 (Smt. Gyan Kaur Vs. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.)

¶15

(2)

¶16

however strongly relied upon the consent of the plaintiff for the impleadment of the applicant as party and submitted that the Board's order be upheld.

¶17

Impleadment of a party is not at the discretion of the plaintiff alone. The Court has to see as to whether the defendant impleaded is a necessary or proper party. Casual impleadments only create unwarranted complexities, delay trials and derail justice. This is more so in a case where the plaint had been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and in the appeal there-against in the first instance the plaintiff had contended before the Appellate Court that the applicant—Surjeet Singh was not a necessary or a proper party in the appeal—the subsequent change on the stand notwithstanding. The Board of Revenue as the highest revenue court is expected to apply its mind before passing any order and formulate adequate reason therefor as its order is subject to a petition before this Court. In the circumstances as the impugned order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Board is one without considering the question as to whether the applicant—Surjeet Singh is a necessary and proper party in the appeal against the order dated 25.04.2014, I would allow this petition, set aside the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Board and remand the matter to the Board for decision on the applicant's revision afresh in accordance with law.

¶18

The requisite exercise be conducted within four months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶20

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶21

MS/-28 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.

Smt Gyan Kaur v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gyan Kaur v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

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

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Satya Naryan Bairwa Vs Shri Rajesh Yadav and Others

Harjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dalpat Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ganesh Narayan Vs State Home Departmentors

Bharat Bai Vs Guddi MEENAandORS