Petitioner challenged orders regarding disputed land. Court allowed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead petitioners as respondents, noting that pending decree execution against purchaser requires their presence.
Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed to implead petitioners as party respondents; writ petition disposed of.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10522 / 2017
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HC Mourya with Mr. Aveesh Mourya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Judgment
03/11/2017
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated
9th May, 2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, Roopwas and the
order dated 22nd April, 2004 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur apart from order dated 2nd May, 2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the pending suit. It was mainly on the ground that land in dispute was purchased by them. The application was dismissed by the court below in reference to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1955. It was held that any sale during pendency of the proceedings is void. The Board of Revenue has maintained the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It is without realising that if decree is passed in favour of the respondents, how execution of the order would be made against the purchaser, not party to the litigation.
The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not decide rights of the parties, rather, provides opportunity of hearing. It is not that Section 52 of the Act of 1955 can be taken as obstruction for impleadment even if party may plead bonafide purchase of the land. In any case, I am not making further remarks on the issue but looking to the facts of this case, the petitioners should have been impleaded as party respondents.
Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs submits that an inquiry about claim of the plaintiffs based on will should be made under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. The appellate authority is ceased of the matter and therein, rights of the parties would be considered and for that, a claim made by the respondents would be decided. The respondents may file an application under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. It would appropriately be considered by the Revenue
Appellate Authority.
With the aforesaid, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed. The acceptance of the application would not mean right in favour of any of the parties, rather, it would be determined in the pending appeal.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.
(MN BHANDARI) J.
FRBOHRA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether purchaser of disputed land should be impleaded as a party in pending revenue litigation.
Whether Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act bars application for impleadment of purchaser.
Whether Revenue Appellate Authority is competent to decide validity of will-based claims in this context.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Singh
Jai Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh
Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Jeet Mal
State of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Roopwas
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
