Dismissed

Kailash Narayan Meena Son of Shri Gullaram Meena v. Gopal Son of Fatyaram Meena

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2022CW/7861/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment, the High Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the applicant and impleaded defendant were the same person. Despite name discrepancies, the plaintiff admitted the applicant was a co-owner and signatory. The Court held the trial Court acted within its discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Kailash Narayan Meena Son of Shri Gullaram Meena Vs… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7861/2022

¶3

Kailash Narayan Meena Son Of Shri Gullaram Meena, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Khora, Meena, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner/Plaintiff/Non-Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gopal Son Of Fatyaram Meena, Aged About 57 Years,

¶7

Arjun Son Of Radheyshyam Meena, Aged About 25 Years,

¶8

Yogesh Son Of Radheyshyam Meena, Aged About 22 Years,

¶9

Rahul @ Banwari Son Of Radheyshyam Meena, Aged About 21 Years,

¶10

Gyarsi Wife Of Radheyshyam Meena, Aged About 55 Years,

¶11

Prabhu @ Pappu Son Of Fatyaram Meena, Aged About 50 Years, All are Residents Of Village Harwar, Patwar Halka Dhand, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

Suman Daughter Of Ghasi, Wife Of Krishan Meena, Resident Of Village Chitodi Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Tehsildar, Amer, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Defendant/Respondent

¶14

Pappu Son Of Fatta, Resident Of Village Harwar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶15

----Applicant/Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheem Singh Dabla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Mr. B.R.Rana Mr. Jitendra Choudhary

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

03/11/2022

(2 of 4)

[CW-7861/2022]

As per the Office report, service on respondents no.1, 6 & 8 is not sufficient.

¶23

However, on the oral request of learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner, service on respondents No.1 & 8 is dispensed with.

¶25

As per the report of the process server dated 16.07.2022, no person in the name of Prabhu @ Pappu, the respondent no.6, resides in the village. Learned counsels for the respondents also submit that no such person exists in the village. The documents on record reveal that before the learned trial Court also, he has not appeared and ex parte proceeding has been drawn against him. Even otherwise also, this Court does not find presence of respondent no.6 necessary. In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to dispense with service of the notice upon the respondent No.6.

¶26

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Headquarter Amber whereby, an application filed by the respondent no.9/applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking his impleadment as one of the defendants, has been allowed.

¶27

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.11.1995 and permanent injunction. During its pendency, the respondent no.9 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking his impleadment on the premise that he is co-owner of the subject land. The application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 06.04.2022, impugned herein.

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CW-7861/2022]

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards report of the process server dated 09.09.2021, submitted that he has made an endorsement therein that when he went to serve the summon of the suit upon Prabhu, the defendant no.6, he stated that his name was Pappu. He submits that since he had already impleaded Prabhu S/o Fatyaram Meena as defendant no.6, the applicant Pappu S/o Fatta being the same person and already a party to the suit, his application deserved to be dismissed. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 06.04.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent no.9 be dismissed.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that in his reply to the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff has admitted that the applicant was co-owner of the subject property who has executed the agreement dated 30.11.1995 in his favour. They submit that in view of this categorical admission, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to contend that the respondent no.9 is not a necessary party. They submit that the applicant/respondent no.9 is never known in the name of Prabhu; rather, in the name of Pappu only. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered.

¶32

Indisputably, the plaintiff has, in his reply to the application filed by the respondent no.9 seeking his impleadment, candidly stated that the subject agreement dated 30.11.1995 was executed by the applicant. Further, this Court finds that after impleading the defendant no.6 in the name of Prabhu, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that it has come to his notice that the defendant

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-7861/2022]

¶35

no.6 Prabhu was also known as Pappu S/o Fatyaram Meena. This Court has gone through the contents of the application alongwith affidavit annexed therewith and does not find source of his information that Prabhu S/o Fatyaram is also known as Pappu. However, in view of the categorical admission by the plaintiff in his reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC that the applicant is one of the co-owners and signatory to the subject agreement, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court in exercise of its judicious discretion.

¶36

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of

¶37

merit.

¶38

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶39

PRAGATI/27

Kailash Narayan Meena Son of Shri Gullaram Meena v. Gopal Son of Fatyaram Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Narayan Meena Son of Shri Gullaram Meena v. Gopal Son of Fatyaram Meena

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 Prabhu Lal @ Prabhu Dayal S/O Late Sh. Jaikishan Vs Mukesh S/O Late Sh. Shivcharan

Suresh Sharma S/O Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramjilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarita Nareda Wife of Dayaram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Ragsaa Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Oxirich Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority (Bida)