Allowed

Chandra Prakash v. Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2018CW/3948/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed to quash an order denying amendment and impleadment. Court directed lower court to implead Rajeev Gandhi Sewa Sansthan, the allottee of disputed road strip, and permit plaint amendment. Merits not prejudiced.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.2.2013 quashed; Rajeev Gandhi Sewa Sansthan to be impleaded; petitioner permitted amendment of plaint.

Chandra Prakash Vs Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3948 / 2013

¶3

Chandra Prakash s/o Sh. Jai Narayan, aged about 63 years, r/o Pachpadra, presently residing at Balotara, Dist.Barmer through its power of attorney Sh.Nand Kishore s/o Sh. Jai Narayan, aged about 63 years, b/c Maheshwari, r/o Pachpadra, presently residing at Khed Road, Balotara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Municipal Board, Balotra through its

¶7

Chairman, Municipal Board, Balotra.

¶8

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, Dist.Barmer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K.Rathi

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr.D.S.Rajvi

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

13/03/2018

¶15

This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶16

“I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 11.2.2013 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Balotra may kindly be quashed and set aside and application (Annex.5) may kindly ordered to be allowed as prayed.

¶17

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

III. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

the petitioner.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had instituted a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the property in question, which earlier belonged to the Municipal Board, Balotra. The petitioner claimed that there was a road adjoining the plot No.92 allotted to him, whereas the Municipal Board, Balotra claimed that the strip of land belonged to it and it has already allotted the same to some other person.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the allotment of the road in question is to be challenged by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and also seeking impleadment of the concerned, in whose favour such allotment has been made, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent however, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the strip of land near Indira Gandhi Nagar, First Phase has been allotted by the respondent-Municipal Board, Balotra to the Rajeev Gandhi Sewa Sansthan vide order dated 08.10.2012, and therefore, the impleadment of the concerned, to whom such allotment has been made, is necessary, and for proper adjudication of the suit regarding the dispute of the adjoining

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

land, which was earlier only against the Municipal Board, shall also now lie against the person to whom the land has been allotted.

¶27

In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.2.2013 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Balotra is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to implead Rajeev Gandhi Sewa Sansthan as party in the suit, and also to permit the petitioner to make appropriate amendment in the plaint pertaining to the subsequent event of the allotment so done by the respondent. However, it is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties on merits.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶29

Skant/-

Chandra Prakash v. Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Prakash v. Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

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

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Chander Vs State and Ors.

Man Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Chandra Prakash Vs Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

Jagdish Chander Vs State and Anr.

Arun Kumar and Anr. Vs the Special Judge,Ndps Cases and Ors.