Allowed

Smt. Babita W/O Shri Haryadesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2023CW/2089/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the impleading of a respondent-applicant in a civil suit. The petitioner argued that since no relief was sought against her opponent in the underlying suit, he was not a necessary party. The Single Judge Bench agreed and dismissed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 27.07.2021 was set aside.

Smt. Babita W/O Shri Haryadesh Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/005741]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2089/2022

¶4

Smt. Babita W/o Shri Haryadesh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Roopwas, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) Member Ward No.02 And Cheirman, Nagar Palika Roopwas District Bharatpur, (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶8

District Election Officer, Cum District Collector, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶9

Election Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶10

Purushottam Lal S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sirsoda Ward No.24 Nagar Palika, Roopwas, Tehsil And Ps Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. RajKumar Goyal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Akshay Sharma, A.G.C.
	Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

¶14

05/04/2023

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent-applicant Purushottam Lal under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was allowed.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is an elected Ward Member of Municipal Council Roopwas, District Bharatpur filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the State respondents. During pendency of the suit

[2023/RJJP/005741]

[CW-2089/2022]

(2 of 3)

proceedings, the respondent-applicant Purushottam Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading him as party defendant in the said suit which was allowed by the trial Court. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.07.2021.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the respondent-applicant Purushottam Lal filed an election petition against the petitioner before the District Judge, Bharatpur and the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was allowed by the District Judge, Bharatpur vide its order dated 04.02.2021 and the election petition filed on behalf of the respondent-applicant was dismissed. Counsel further submits that since no relief has been claimed against the respondent-applicant, therefore, he is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings.

¶22

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicant opposed the writ petition and submitted that on the complaint made by the respondent-applicant, the enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner.

¶23

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reason that since no relief has been sought by the petitioner against the respondent-applicant in the suit filed by her before the learned trial Court therefore, in my considered view, the respondent-applicant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings.

[2023/RJJP/005741]

[CW-2089/2022]

(3 of 3)

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court dated 27.07.2021 is set aside.

¶29

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶30

JYOTI /52

Smt. Babita W/O Shri Haryadesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babita W/O Shri Haryadesh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt. Madhumala W/O. Shri Deepak Udaiwal Vs Smt. Nitika Udaiwal Wife of Late Shri Sanjay Udaiwal

M/S. Pinkcity Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited Vs M/S. Bhadria Iron Foundry

Managing Committee, Cambridge Court High School Vs State of Rajasthan

Laduram S/O Late Moti Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Seedling Modern High School Vs Rajasthan State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Manish Kumar Son of Girdharilal Vs Collector (Stamp)