Dismissed

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikash Andanr v. Nand Singh Andanr

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2019CW/4052/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order declining applications for impleadment and amendment. The court held that the trial court committed no illegality as the petitioners failed to prove their case and there was a delay in filing applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed. The trial court's order declining the applications for impleadment and amendment is upheld.

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikash Andanr Vs Nand… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 4052/2016

¶3

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikas Samiti Registered Office Khatipura Via Jhotwara, Through Secretary Kaila, Narsingh Temple, Khatipura, Jaipur. Now Represented Through Newly Elected Secretary Shiv Charan Sharma Son Of Late Shri R.p. Sharma, Resident Of Narsingh Temple, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶4

Kailash Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Ex-Secretary, Laxmi Narsingh Vikas Samiti, Narsinghji Ka Mandir, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Nand Singh Son Of Late Shri Bajrang Singh, By Caste Rajput

¶8

Bharat Singh Son Of Late Shri Bajrang Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Khatipura, Near Narsingh Temple, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, petitioner No.2, present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh, respondent No.2, present in person.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

08/02/2019

¶14

Petitioner No.2-Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, present in person, contended that the matter is listed before the Court below on 11^th February, 2019, and therefore, the matter may be heard.

¶15

Respondent-defendant No.2-Bharat Singh, is present in person.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-4052/2016]

¶18

As prayed for and agreed upon by the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

Heard and considered.

¶20

Petitioner No.2-Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, contended that the property, involved herein, belongs to temple of Lord ‘Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji’ and ‘Shri Narsinghji’ , which are about 250 years old. It is further contended that on the southern side of the temple, there is an open way and a ‘Haveli’ adjacent to the temple, which was of property belonging to the erstwhile Rural of Jaipur, Late Shri Maharaj Man Singh Ji.

¶21

According to the petitioner, father of respondent No.2, namely, Late Shri Bajrang Singh, was the watchman of the temple and was permitted by the ‘ Mahant’ of the temple to stay in the aforesaid ‘ Haveli’ .

¶22

The petitioners have instituted the suit proceedings for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents praying for restraint order from raising any construction thereby changing the status of the property involved herein and not to create third party rights by transferring of the property in any manner.

¶23

Petitioner No.2-Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, further pointed out that before framing of the issues, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, with a prayer to implead Shri Sawai Bhawani Singh and Shri Sawai Man Singh Museum Trust Palace, as party defendant No. 3 and 4, was instituted on 22^nd October, 2010. However, pending the application Shri Bhawani Singh died. The petitioners moved another application under Order 6 Rule 17 and another under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC,

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-4052/2016]

¶26

with a prayer to take on record the legal representatives of Shri Bhawani Singh, as party defendants along with the Trust in the subject suit.

¶27

However, the Court below, vide impugned order dated 22^nd January, 2016, declined both the applications, leading to institution of the present writ petition. 10. Per contra ; Respondent No.2-Mr. Bharat Singh, contended that there is not even an iota of evidence placed on record by the petitioners in support of the plea, which is now sought to be introduced by way of amendment after an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost 8 years. Further, the application that was instituted in the year 2010, was kept pending and no efforts were made by the petitioners for its determination.

¶28

Moreover, the Court below vide impugned order dated 22^nd January, 2016, committed no illegality in declining the prayer for impleadment so also amendment, as prayed for.

¶29

Indisputably, the suit proceedings were instituted in the year 2008. Despite of the application for impleadment Late Shri Bhawani Singh, instituted on 22^nd October, 2010, but the same remained pending until 22^nd January, 2016, while Shri Bhawani Singh died and another application was instituted to take his legal representatives on record along with the Trust, as party defendants in the pending suit proceedings.

¶30

From the factual matrix and submissions put-forth by the parties, it is evident that the petitioners are not even aware of the fact whether the property involved herein, was given to the petitioners or Sawami Mansingh Muesum Trust Palace. Hence,

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-4052/2016]

¶33

petitioners moved an application for impleadment of Late Shri Bhawani Singh along with Trust.

¶34

A glance of the impugned order dated 22^nd January, 2016, would reflect that the Court below, keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and reasons detailed out in the application, seeking impleadment and amendment, concluded that it is the plaintiff, who has to stand on its own legs and prove the case set up in the plaint. Petitioners are not even certain about the factual matrix as to how they came in possession/ownership of the property involved herein.

¶35

For the reasons aforesaid and reasonings recorded by the Court below while declining the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, so also prayer for amendment prayed for under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; suffers with no illegality, much less, materially illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

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

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶38

Pcg/25

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikash Andanr v. Nand Singh Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikash Andanr v. Nand Singh Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddhi Prakash Agarwal S/O Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Agarwal Vs Smt. Anita Choudhary

Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Son of Shri Chaturbhuj Agrawal Vs Indian Medical Trust

Ramkishore S/O Late Shri Puraram Vs Shankar Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.

Narendra Singh S/O Shri Mahidhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Indian Medical Trust Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Andan

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal Vs State Bank of India through Managing Director