Allowed

Lrs. of Ramakishan v. Prem Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2019CW/4268/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the trial Court's order substituting legal representatives of deceased Bhanwar Lal as a party in a suit for recovery of possession. The Court held that since Bhanwar Lal was merely an agent of the license holder and died 10 years prior with the plaintiffs asserting no LR possession existed, the substitution was erroneous and the order quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.02.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.2, Metropolitan Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No.186/1981 is quashed and set aside.

Lrs. of Ramakishan Vs Prem Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4268/2014

¶4

Lrs. Of Ramakishan :

¶5

1/1. Smt. Shanti Devi Wd/o Late Shri Rama Kishan Ji Dave aged 84 years, R/o Guru Kripa Bhawan, Outside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur.

¶6

1/2. Shri Shri Kishan S/o Late Shri Rama Kishan Ji Dave aged 62 years, R/o Ram Krishna Bhawan, Outside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur.

¶7

1/3. Shri Baldev Prakash Dave S/o Late Shri Rama Kishan Ji Dave, aged 60 years, R/o Kapda Bazar, Chandi Hall Ki Bari, Jodhpur.

¶8

1/4. Shri Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Shri Rama Kishan Ji Dave, aged 56 years, R/o Guru Kripa Bhawan, Outside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Prem Singh S/o Shri Aasu Ram Ji, B/c Mali, R/o Mesriyon Ki Niyat Nohre Ke Pass, Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

¶12

Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur former Nagar Parishad, Jodhpur.

¶13

Manohar Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh

¶14

Prem Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh

¶15

Hazari Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh

¶16

Pramod Singh S/o Late Bhanwar Singh

¶17

All B/c Mali, R/o Nai Rakasani, In front of Badda’s Hotel Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

¶18

The Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Metropolitan, Jodhpur.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. R. Soni. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. M. Vyas.

¶21

(2 of 7)

¶22

[CW-4268/2014]

¶23

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶24

Judgment

¶25

29/07/2019

¶26

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Metropolitan Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), vide which the application dated 18.02.2012 filed by the respondents No.3 to 6 had been allowed.

¶27

The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the Municipality, Jodhpur-respondent No.2 alloted ‘Patta Sud’ land of the petitioners’ father to Prem Singh-respondent No.1 vide order dated 08.08.1965. Petitioners’ father challenged the said order dated 08.08.1965 by way of revision petition, interalia with the contention that petitioner’s ‘Patta Sud’ land could not be allotted to Prem Singh.

¶28

The said allotment was earlier stayed by the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 23.01.1967 and the matter was referred to State Government for passing appropriate order(s). The State Government vide an order dated 18.11.1985 allowed the revision petition. In furtherance of the said order, the State Government issued a letter dated 21.11.1985 directing the Municipality to hand over the possession of the disputed plot to the petitioners’ father.

¶29

Since the respondent-Municipality did not carry out the effect of the revisional order, the petitioners’ father Ramakishan filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit against Prem Singh, Bhanwar Lal and Municipal Council, Jodhpur.

¶30

In the above suit apart from Prem Singh, the plaintiff impleaded Bhanwar Lal also as a defendant as he was carrying on

¶31

(3 of 7)

¶32

[CW-4268/2014]

¶33

business of purchase and sale of vegetables on behalf of Prem Singh-defendant No.1 at plaintiff’s piece of land.

¶34

During pendency of the suit, said plaintiff-Ramakishan passed away, for which the present petitioners were substituted as plaintiffs.

¶35

During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2-Bhanwar Lal also passed away on 08.08.2003. The plaintiff, however, did not bring his legal representatives on record and moved an application seeking deletion of his name, by contending that the defendant No.2-Bhanwar Lal was simply working at the behest of defendant No.1-Prem Singh and none of the legal representatives of defendant No.2-Bhanwar Lal were having possession over the suit properties.

¶36

The petitioners’ aforesaid application for seeking deletion of the name of defendant No.2 came to be allowed by the trial Court, vide its order dated 30.10.2012 and his name stood deleted.

¶37

Thereafter, on 18.02.2013 the respondents No.3 to 6, legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought their substitution in place of Bhanwar Lal indicating that they had been carrying on business in the disputed premises with Bhanwar Lal and such business is being continued even after his death.

¶38

The application aforesaid filed by legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal came to be allowed by the trial Court on 04.02.2014 interalia observing that petitioners in their application have stated that legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal are not having possession over the contentious premises, whereas the applicantslegal representatives have come to the Court with the assertion

¶39

(4 of 7)

¶40

[CW-4268/2014]

¶41

supported by an affidavit that they are carrying on business of purchase and sale in the suit premises.

¶42

Calling the impugned order dated 04.02.2014 in question, Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that learned trial Court has erred in impleading the respondents No.3 to 6 in the suit proceedings. He argued that the learned trial Court was required to see the nature of the suit and the relief claimed.

¶43

Inviting attention of the Court towards the historical facts and the averments made in the plaint, Mr. Soni contended that the suit was essentially against Prem Singh and Municipal Council, Jodhpur, because it was Prem Singh, who was allotted license to carry on business of petitioners’ ‘Patta Sud’ land. Licensed granted to Prem Singh had been set aside by the Revisional Court, vide order dated 23.01.1967 and the same has attained finality. The suit was simply with a view to ensure execution rather implementation of the order passed by the Revisional Authority; hence, the respondent No.3 to 6 being legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal are neither necessary nor proper party. He further argued that the petitioners’ assertion in the plaint was only to highlight the fact that Prem Singh-defendant No.1 was carrying on his business through Bhanwar Lal and that Bhanwar Lal has been impleaded as a party defendant only with a view to ensure proper implementation of the order passed by the Revisional Authority which has been duly affirmed by this Court.

¶44

Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 6 vehemently argued that the impugned order, impleading the respondents No.3 to 6 as party, does not call for any interference, as the plaintiffs-petitioners had made incorrect averments in their application that none of the legal

¶45

(5 of 7)

¶46

[CW-4268/2014]

¶47

representatives of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal are working in the premises. He added that if Bhanwar Lal was not a necessary party, despite carrying on the business of Prem Singh, then why the plaintiff at all impleaded him as party, is a question to be asked from the plaintiff. Once Bhanwar Lal had been impleaded as a party, the answering respondents No.3 to 6 being his legal representatives, have a right to be heard by the Court, before they are deprived of their possession over the contentious land.

¶48

He argued that as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has devised a way to get rid of respondents No.3 to 6, for according to which instead of bringing them on record, he has deleted name of Bhanwar Lal, so as to guard against the probable abatement of the suit for not bringing his LR’s on record.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶50

This Court is of the opinion that whether a party is required to be arrayed as a respondent or substituted as legal representative has to be decided on the touch-stone of the issue involved and pleadings of the parties.

¶51

Concededly, the plaintiff filed a suit for enforcement of the revisional order dated 23.01.1967 (duly affirmed upto High Court). Till the matter reached this Court, it was only Prem Singh, who locked horns with the present plaintiff apart from the Municipal Council. Municipality/Municipal Council issued a license to Prem Singh and throughout the proceedings Bhanwar Lal has not appeared before any of the Courts. Even at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff’s assertion has been that Prem Singh is carrying on the business through Bhanwar Lal. In other words, the plaintiff’s essential cause of action lay against Prem Singh and

¶52

(6 of 7)

¶53

[CW-4268/2014]

¶54

Bhanwar lal has been shown simply as an employee/agent of Prem Singh.

¶55

Bhanwar Lal had neither appeared before the trial Court, nor

¶56

had he filed a written statement.

¶57

The respondents No.3 to 6 in their application, being legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal, have come with an assertion that they are legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal and carrying on the business at the contentious premises.

¶58

Since Bhanwar Lal himself was not a necessary party and has been impleaded by the plaintiff as an abandoned caution, when the plaintiffs after his death asserted that none of the legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal are carrying on their business at the suit premises, the trial Court had rightly deleted name of the deceased Bhanwar Lal vide order dated 30.10.2012.

¶59

If the petitioners had any grievance, they ought to have taken remedies against such order, vide which the name of Bhanwar Lal was deleted, instead of filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

¶60

If they were/are really working with their father Bhanwar Lal in their individual capacity, they cannot plead ignorance of the pendency of suit and in such circumstances, their application filed on 18.02.2013 is highly belated having been filed after about 10 years of death of Bhanwar Lal.

¶61

Be that as it may, even on merits since the propositus of the father of the respondents No.3 to 6 was not having any right, interest or title over the contentious property, except working as an agent of Prem Singh, in considered opinion of this Court, presence of respondents No.3 to 6 is not required.

¶62

(7 of 7)

¶63

[CW-4268/2014]

¶64

That apart, the plaintiff cannot be asked to continue a litigation against the persons against whom he does not have any grievance nor does he seek any relief.

¶65

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) No.2, Metropolitan Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.186/1981 is quashed and set aside.

¶66

The stay application No.3905/2014 is also disposed of.

¶67

Needless to observe that as a result of petitioners’ objection to the impleadment of respondents No.3 to 6 herein - legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal and as a result of instant order, if anything ultimately turns out to be fatal to petitioners’ rights, they shall alone be responsible; deletion of respondents No.3 to 6 will always remain at the risk and peril of the petitioners.

¶68

The petitioners to file amended cause title before the trial Court in terms of the present order.

¶69

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶70

27-A.Arora/-

Lrs. of Ramakishan v. Prem Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs. of Ramakishan v. Prem Singh and Ors.

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

The Coordinator, PTET-2017 Mds Uni., Vs Manju Sankhi and Ors.

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chandra Devi

Vimla Devi Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Kashi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Umalaxmi Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Manoj Kumar