This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a revenue board order that impleaded subsequent purchasers of suit land. The court upheld the trial court’s order, ruling that such purchasers are affected persons.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC upheld.
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.
(1 of 2)
[CW-557/2011]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2011
Bajrang And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue, Ajmer And Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divakar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. JL Purohit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Ojha Mr. Nishank Madhan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/11/2021
In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 27.12.2010 (Annex.7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No.06/2002 whereby the learned trial court has allowed the application of the respondent no.5 & 6 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for making them party.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of attorney holder and registered sale-deed holder were party to the litigation and, thus, any subsequent purchaser was not required to be impleaded as party as it would extend the zone of adjudication thereby making it difficult adjudicate his rights.
Counsel for the respondent submits that it is settled law by the Hon’ble Apex Court that subsequent purchasers of suit land
(2 of 2)
[CW-557/2011]
are affected persons and ought to be made party. For strengthening such submission, counsel for the respondent has referred to these citations :- (1). Robin Ramjibhai Patel Vs. Anandibai Rama Alias Raja Ram Panwar & Ors., reported in (2018) 15 SCC 614 (2) Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 and (3) A. Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738.
This Court after perusing record of case finds that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as above rightly been accepted by the trial court in the given facts and circumstances and there is no lacuna in the impugned order and the precedent law stated by the counsel for the respondent are directly applicable in the matter.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
10-nirmala/Sanjay-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent purchaser of suit land must be impleaded as a party to the litigation.
Whether the trial court rightly accepted the application for impleading subsequent purchasers under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Robin Ramjibhai Patel Vs. Anandibai Rama Alias Raja Ram Panwar & Ors.Referred¶17
Robin Ramjibhai Patel Vs. Anandibai Rama Alias Raja Ram Panwar & Ors., (2018) 15 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited & Ors.Referred¶17
Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Private Limited & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397 · Who else cites this
A. Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. SubramaniyamReferred¶17
A. Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bajrang And Ors
Board Of Revenue, Ajmer And Ors
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
