Dismissed

Yogendra Singh and Ors. v. Smt Bidam Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2018CW/3478/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Additional District Judge's dismissal of an application to be impleaded as a party to a suit for specific performance. The High Court held that third parties are not necessary or proper parties and dismissed the writ petition, finding no jurisdictional error or perversity.

What did the court decide?

The application for impleadment was dismissed by the trial court; the writ petition challenging this dismissal is dismissed.

Yogendra Singh and Ors. Vs Smt Bidam Devi and Ors. — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶4

ORDER

¶5

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3478/2018)

¶6

Yogendra Singh Son of Bhanwar Singh by Caste Rajput, Resident of House No. AC-4, Gayatri Bhawan, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

Shri Gopal Kanwar D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Wife of Vedpal Singh, Resident of Guru Pab Singh, Scheme No. 3, Flat No. 93, Panchkula, Haryana

¶8

Smt. Preetam Kanwar, D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Wife of Sawai Singh Bhati, by Caste Rajput, Resident of H.No. D-172, Kewat Marg, Hanuman Nagar, D-Block, Amrapali Circle, Jaipur

¶9

Smt. Ratan Kanwar, Wife of Bhanwar Singh

¶10

Bhawani Singh, Son of Late Shri Bhanwar Singh

¶11

Devendra Singh, Son of Late Shri Bhanwar Singh,

¶12

All Sr. No. 4 to 6 Are Residents of H.No. AC-4, Gayatri Sadan, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

Smt. Bidam Devi, Wife of Shri Kalyan Sahay Yadav, Aged About 57 Years, Resident of Village Manda Bhinda Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶16

Babu Lal Yadav Son of Kalyan Sahay, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of Village Manda Bhinda Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶17

Umrao Singh Yadav, Son of Shri Kalyan Sahay Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of Village Manda Bhinda Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶18

Shri Ram Gopal Boosar Son of Shri Badri Narayan Patwari, by Caste Mahajan Khandelwal, Resident of 52 A, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, Chowkdi, Hawali Shahar, C-Scheme, Jaipur

¶19

Shri Shrawan Kumar Son of Shri Damodar Sethi, by Caste Mahajan Khandelwal, Resident of Rasta Jadiyan Chowkdi Vishveshwar Ji, Jaipur, Presently Residents of Sethi Bhawan, 27b, Mangal Marg, Lal Kothi, Jaipur

¶20

Date of Order: April 10, 2018.

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶23

Ms. Gayatri Rathore, for the petitioners.

¶24

¶25

BY THE COURT :

¶26

The petitioners-applicants (hereinafter `the applicants') have challenged the order dated 13-12-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge Chomu, District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.24/2013 dismissing their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶27

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned

¶28

order dated 13-12-2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the

¶29

petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded

¶30

in a suit for specific performance laid by the plaintiff-respondents

¶31

No.1 to 3 against the defendants-respondents No.4&5. In so doing

¶32

the trial court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶33

case of Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal [(2005)6 SCC 733], wherein it

¶34

has been held that in a suit for specific performance based on

¶35

agreement to sell between the two, a third party which has no relation with the agreement to sell on which the suit is founded

¶36

cannot be impleaded as party. An order of impleadment even

¶37

¶38

otherwise in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is one in the discretion of

¶39

the trial court where in its view the impleadment would facilitate

¶40

the effective and complete adjudication of all issues before it. The

¶41

trial court has evidently not so also found.

¶42

I am of the considered view that in view of the fundamental

¶43

principles for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as also the

¶44

fact that a third party in a suit for specific performance is not a

¶45

necessary party nor even a proper party, the trial court has rightly

¶46

exercised its discretion on the impleadment application and on an

¶47

objective consideration of the facts of the case, dismissed it. The discretion exercised by the trial court is well considered and reasoned. It cannot thus be said to be exercised unlawfully. Besides, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff as the dominus litus has

¶48

the right to choose whom he seeks to litigate against and pray for relief. The plaintiff had confined his suit for specific performance

¶49

only to the defendants. No third party had a right to inter meddle in

¶50

the suit.

¶51

¶52

In the circumstances, I cannot find any good ground to
warrant interference with the impugned order dated 13-12-2017
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is well settled the
power thereunder can be invoked only in situations of jurisdictional
errors or where the order impugned is shockingly perverse, or
vitiated by misdirection in law. None of the aforesaid situations
obtain in the present case.
Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Yogendra Singh and Ors. v. Smt Bidam Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Singh and Ors. v. Smt Bidam Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajbala Vs Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Ms Green Plus Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt Reshma Devi

Abdul Wazid Vs Abdul Mazid and Ors.

Javed Khan and Anr. Vs Ahsan Khan

Irfan Vs Sayed Shahandors

Pratap Singh Vs Shri Anand Kumar and Others