Dismissed

Ramswaroop v. Kastoormal

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2018CW/18302/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a necessary party in a suit for declaration of title. The petitioner, claiming tenancy rights, argued his rights would be adversely affected. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner is an interested but not necessary party and his earlier failed application bars recons

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ramswaroop Vs Kastoormal — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 18302/2018

¶3

Ramswaroop S/o Late Shri Gangaram Solanki, Aged About 69 Years, Cast- Mali, Badi Teeja Maji Mandir, Ghasmandi Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kastoormal S/o Shri Kanmal, Cast- Mehta Oswal, Diwano Ki Haweli, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶7

Smt. Pushpa W/o Late Shri Mohanmal,, Cast- Mehta Oswal, Diwano Ki Haweli, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶8

Sanjay S/o Late Shri Mohanmal, Cast- Mehta Oswal, Diwano Ki Haweli, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

Ajay S/o Late Shri Mohanmal, Cast- Mehta Oswal, Diwano Ki Haweli, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶10

Nagar Nigam Jodhpur, Through Commissioner, Nigam Karyalay, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. LK Purohit For Respondent(s) :

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

04/12/2018

¶16

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 05.12.2017 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶17

Shorn of unwarranted details, the facts in brief are that the plaintiffs Kastoormal et al filed a suit for declaration against the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and sought a declaration to the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-18302/2018]

¶20

effect that they are owner of the land having measurement 54’10”; 55’2”; 8’.2”; 8’.6” situated in Ghasmandi, Jodhpur, which has been in their possession even prior to independence. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner filed an application dated 5.12.2017 under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking his impleadment, inter alia, averring that he is having tenancy right over 346 sq. feet of land covering shop No.2 & 3 forming part of the contentious land, for which the suit aforesaid had been filed by the plaintiffs.

¶21

The learned trial court rejected the petitioner’s impleadment application vide its impugned order dated 6.9.2018, inter alia, observing that the similar application filed by the applicant (Ram Swaroop) had earlier been dismissed by the court and further that the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the applicant. The trial court has also held that the alleged change in the circumstances stated in the application does not alter the position of facts and law.

¶22

Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order impugned submitted that as the petitioner is a tenant over a part of the contentious land ad measuring 346 sq. feet and if the suit as filed by the plaintiffs is decreed and the plaintiffs are declared owner of the entire land mentioned in para no.2 of plaint, his rights would be adversely effected. He further submitted that the petitioner has a subsisting right of claiming regularization or leasehold in relation to the said land ad measuring 346 sq. feet.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the court below has committed no error of law in rejecting the petitioner’s impleadment application.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-18302/2018]

¶26

Admittedly, the suit in question is a suit for declaration of the title and the petitioner is purportedly having tenancy right over 346 sq. feet land over which shop No. 2 & 3 are existing. Such land may be falling part of the land for which the plaintiffs have sought a declaration but petitioner is a tenant of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, which is very much a party in the suit. As far as the petitioner’s rights are concerned, his rights are only confined to his tenancy, which is said to have been conferred by the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, which is a defendant in the suit proceedings.

¶27

The petitioner may be interested or an interested party in the matter but not a proper and necessary party inasmuch as, none of his rights are likely to be effected upon the decision of the suit. That apart, as the petitioner’s earlier application dated 25.11.2011 seeking impleadment had been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 01.08.2012, he cannot maintain another application for the same relief and practically for the same grounds as the principles of res-judicata equally applies to the interlocutory applications. Merely because the Municipal Corporation has not filed its written statement, the petitioner cannot claim that the circumstances have changed and he has become a necessary party to inter-meddle in the suit proceedings, in which he is otherwise an alien.

¶28

For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶30

7-CPGoyal/-

Ramswaroop v. Kastoormal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroop v. Kastoormal

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

Sudarshan Shandiya Vs Sudarshan Sethiy and Ors.

Shanker Lal Harijan and Ors. Vs Manjit Singh and Anr.

Jaiveer Singh Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

M/S. Prem Giri Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukhtyar Ahmed Vs Rk Verma

M/S. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Ridhi Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd.