Dismissed

Rudi Devi W/O Ramu @ Ramlal v. Prem Devi D/O Ramu @ Ramlal W/O Prahlad

Rajasthan HC28 Mar 2022CW/3794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a trial court order dismissing an application for impleadment of petitioner-respondents. The High Court held the trial court correctly rejected the plea as admitting it would convert an injunction suit into a title suit, violating the principle that impleadment cannot enlarge the suit scope. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the dismissal of the impleadment application is dismissed.

Rudi Devi W/O Ramu @ Ramlal Vs Prem Devi D/O Ramu @… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3794/2021

¶3

Rudi Devi W/o Ramu @ Ramlal, Aged About 70 Years,

¶4

Sagarmal Son Of Jhutha Ram, Aged About 68 Years,

¶5

Kalyan Son Of Jhutha Ram, Aged About 65 Years,

¶6

Chhitarmal Son Of Jhutha Ram, Aged About 62 Years, All are Residents Of Picharanwali Dhani, Kishorpura Tan Doogarsi Ka Bas, Tahsil - Kishangarh Renwal, District - Jaipur (Senior Citizen)

¶7

----Petitioners/defendants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Prem Devi D/o Ramu @ Ramlal W/o Prahlad, Resident Of Kishorpura, Pichayoriya Wali Dhani, Doogarsi Ka Bas, Tehsil - Kishangarh Renwal, District - Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

Assistant Engineer, J.v.v.n.l., Jobner, Tehsil -Fulera, District - Jaipur Rajasthan

¶12

Junior Engineer, J.v.v.n.l., Jobner, Tehsil -Fulera, District - Jaipur Rajasthan

¶13

----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶15

Order

¶16

28/03/2022

¶17

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Kishangarh, Renwal, District Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking their impleadment as party-respondents has been dismissed.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-3794/2021]

¶20

The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No.2 & 3/defendants stating therein that they want to disconnect electric connection installed in her residential house dehors the statutory provisions. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking their impleadment on the premise that the residential house in question belongs to them and hence, they were necessary parties. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 05.03.2021, impugned herein.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are owner of the property in question on the strength of a registered will in which the respondent No.1 had obtained the electricity connection illegally. He submitted that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application without appreciating this important aspect of the matter and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Heard. Considered.

¶23

The respondent No.1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No.2 & 3 seeking an injunction against them for disconnecting electric connection installed in the house wherein she is residing alongwith her children. A perusal of the application submitted by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not reveal that it was disputed and denied therein that the petitioner was residing in the house in question alongwith her children. Their sole contention was that the property was handed over to the applicants after raising construction by ‘Kaker Sasur’. Indisputably, the respondent No.1 is in possession of the property in question and is enjoying electricity connection. The question

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-3794/2021]

¶26

involved in the suit is as to whether the respondents No.2 & 3 can be restrained by the Court from disconnecting the same for which presence of the petitioners does not appaer to be necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter. It is trite that if impleadment of a party entails enlargement of the scope of suit or changes its nature, it is impermissible. If the contention of the applicants is accepted, it would covert a suit for permanent injunction into a title suit. Even otherwise also, in view of the settled law that a plaintiff is dominus litis , in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment in its judicious discretion.

¶27

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶28

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶29

PRAGATI/44

Rudi Devi W/O Ramu @ Ramlal v. Prem Devi D/O Ramu @ Ramlal W/O Prahlad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudi Devi W/O Ramu @ Ramlal v. Prem Devi D/O Ramu @ Ramlal W/O Prahlad

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

Sajjan Kumar Halwai S/O. Late Shri Atma Ram Halwai (Partner-M/S. Shanti Construction) Vs India Sme Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Asmeena Khan W/O Jaikamdeen Vs Farjana W/O Shri Sher Mohammad

Rahila Mahila Bahuuddeshya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Aavas Financers Limited Vs Smt. Godawari Devi W/O Shri Narpat Ram

Tekram S/O Sh. Premraj Vs Satpal S/O Sh. Premraj

Rafik Son of Isab Vs State of Rajasthan