The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order dismissing an application to be impleaded in a suit. The Court held that changed circumstances regarding land title justified invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 15.01.2014 quashed; petitioner permitted to be impleaded as a party in the suit proceedings.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4959 / 2014
Foolaram
----Petitioner
Versus
Gordhanram & Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vikas Hedau
For Respondent(s) :Mr. RJ Punia,Mr. Manish Patel, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order
23/04/2018
(2 of 4)
[CW-4959/2014]
had vitally changed on count of the status of same patta about the same land having been changed at the instance of the present petitioner before the learned authority and the Additional Collector, Bikaner in which vide order dated 16.05.2013, the authority had quashed the Patta in question holding the land allotted to be a public place and observing that the same forms part of the public thorough fair.
(3 of 4)
[CW-4959/2014]
2012(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1370 , the relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :-
“8. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversory from whom he seeks relief and it was not for a court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not a province of a court of law to interfere with that right. If plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the Court to worry about. Viewed from this angle, in the case of a permanent and mandatory injunction, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are not found to be a necessary party or a proper party in the instant case, as the petitioners are found not to have sought any relief against them. Both the parties have been claiming possession over the disputed land and both the parties have filed separate suits relating to one subject matter. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are found to have filed a suit way back in the year 2004 and in that suit the plaintiff did not endeavour to implead the petitioners as a party defendant, whereas, in the instant case, when the suit is found to have been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been allowed to be impleaded as a party, by the learned trial Court. The approach of the learned trial should be inconformity with the provisions of law. The order is found to be arbitrary, capricious and the same being not found to be apt, deserves to be set aside.”
(4 of 4)
[CW-4959/2014]
in question was directly contested between both the parties before the learned authority, and at the instance of the petitioner, the Patta of the land in question has been quashed by the learned authority against the respondents. The proceedings drawn by the learned authority in the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 clearly point out that the petitioner has been successful in contesting his prejudices regarding the land in question and since his prejudice is well established, therefore, invocation of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC should have been made by the learned court below.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.
sudheer
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner whose prejudice regarding the disputed land was established by an authority order can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC despite an earlier dismissed application.
Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in light of changed circumstances.
Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing impleadment despite the petitioner holding a successful contention against the respondents' title.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors.Relied on¶18
Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 · Who else cites this
Kishan Sharma & Anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & Ors.Distinguished¶25
Kishan Sharma & Anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & Ors. reported in 2012(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1370
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Foolaram
Gordhanram & Ors.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
