Dismissed

N. K. Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh v. Indrajeet Son of Unknown

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2019CW/20899/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the trial court's order declining his application for impleadment of Bhagwat Singh under CPC. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the impleadment application was rightly declined as the remedy lay elsewhere and Bhagwat Singh was not a necessary party.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ application. No impleadment of Bhagwat Singh was ordered.

N. K. Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh Vs Indrajeet Son of… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 20899/2018

¶3

N. K. Meena Son Of Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Dehli Road, Opposite Shakti Dham Mandir, Mungaska Alwar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Indrajeet Son Of Unknown, By Caste Puri, Resident Of 1/590, Kala Kuwan, Housing Board, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar (Raj.)

¶7

Devi Singh Son Of Shri Un Known, By Caste Unknown, Resident Of Block No. 01, Plot No. 93, Diwakari Alwar, District Alwar.

¶8

The Multan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Diwakari, Alwar, Through Its President Dipendra Singh Son Of Shri Mansingh, By Caste Thakur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. K. Meena, in person For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

14/02/2019

¶14

Petitioner present in person is aggrieved of order dated 9^th July, 2018, wherein, an application institute under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been declined.

¶15

Petitioner vociferously argued that the Court below ought to have been granted the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Bhagwat Singh, who according to the petitioner, is now the beneficiary, as a consequence of forgery, of the same plot of land which was allotted to the petitioner and is the subject

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-20899/2018]

¶18

matter of the suit proceedings instituted by him. According to the petitioner, a forged document of transfer of the same plot of land, of the petitioner, has been executed in favour of Bhagwat Singh, of which he learnt later-on, and therefore, instituted the application for his impleadment though suit proceedings were instituted in the year 2009.

¶19

Heard and considered.

¶20

Indisputably, the suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner in the year 2009, are pending consideration before the trial Court below wherein an application was instituted earlier by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was already declined on 21^st November, 2012, which was of identical nature.

¶21

From a glance of the impugned order dated 9^th July, 2019, it is reflected that the petitioner has instituted the suit proceedings claiming himself to be the owner of the plot of land bearing number 95 in view of allotment to him made, by the erstwhile housing society, which according to him was transferred to one Dipendra Saini and Prakash Tanwar , though indicating it to be the plot number 94. Prayer to implead Dipendra Saini and Prakash Tanwar, on that count was declined on 21^st November, 2012. Almost on identical facts another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was instituted for impleadment of Bhagwat Singh, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 9^th July, 2018.

¶22

During the course of arguments so also in view of certain findings as recorded by the Court below, it has surfaced that the reason for impleadment of Bhagwat Singh is for he is trying to encroach upon plot number 95 of the petitioner for Dipendra Saini and Prakash Tanwar, who are owners of plot number 94, are his

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-20899/2018]

¶25

near relatives. The Court below committed no error while observing that in the circumstances stated in the application seeking impleadment; the remedy for the grievance was elsewhere but not by way of impleadment of Bhagwat Singh, as a party defendant to the suit proceedings. There is no material available on record on the basis of which Bhagwat Singh, could be construed to be either a necessary or proper party to the suit proceedings.

¶26

For the reasons aforesaid and in view of reasonings recorded by the Court below while declining the application of the petitioner; I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶29

Pooja/31

N. K. Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh v. Indrajeet Son of Unknown

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. K. Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh v. Indrajeet Son of Unknown

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

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Ajmer Vs Hemant Kumar @ J. Hemant Kumar Mehta S/O Shri Jawatmal Mehta

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Vs Shri Munshi Ram Bhatnagar S/O Late Shri Partma Swaroop @ Narayan Swaroop Bhatnagar

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal Vs Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal

Arjundas S/O Shyamdas Vs Lalludas Ji Swami Chela Ramdevdaar Ji

Pappibai (So Called) W/O Khushiram Vs Manisha D/O Khiladi

Vijay Singh S/O Mahaveer Prasad Singhal Vs the Director, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University