Dismissed

Yashwant Singh and Anr. v. Narendra Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2023CW/215/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed connected writ petitions challenging rejection of applications for impleadment and temporary injunction in a suit concerning disputed kund. Court held no cause of action against petitioners rendered impleadment unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Applications for impleadment and temporary injunction rejected; writ petitions dismissed.

Yashwant Singh and Anr. Vs Narendra Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:40724]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 215/2014

¶4

Yashwant Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Kalyan Singh, R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶5

Pradeep Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Kalyan Singh, R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Narendra Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶9

Ravindra Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. 3. Bane Singh S/o Shri Rewat Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2415/2014

¶13

Yashwant Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Kalyan Singh, R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶14

Pradeep Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Kalyan Singh, R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

Narendra Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶18

Ravindra Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶19

Bane Singh S/o Shri Rewat Singh R/o Biana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Nikub

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶23

Order (Oral)

¶24

24/11/2023

¶25

Vide this common order and judgment, above-mentioned two writ petitions are being disposed of since facts are analogous and

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:40724]

[CW-215/2014]

issues raised therein are common. For brevity, recitals are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 215/2014.

¶30

Petitioners herein have challenged a common impugned order dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure-P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge, Taranagar whereby, two separate applications i.e. one under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC filed by petitioners for impleadment in the main suit and second for temporary injunction, were both rejected.

¶31

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed a lawsuit seeking permanent injunction against Respondent No. 3 qua disputed kund (Haud). The defendant responded by denying the facts presented in the complaint, asserting that the said kund (Haud) was constructed by their forefathers, and the plaintiffs have no exclusive rights to it. Whereas, petitioner claims that both parties i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendant, have got no proprietary rights over the disputed kund. The petitioner is apprehensive that there might be collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant to obtain a collusive decree, prompting the petitioners to file an application for impleadment. However, vide impugned order, the application filed by petitioner, was dismissed. Hence the instant petition.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner argues that for effective adjudication of the suit for injunction, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis the apprehension of collusion, petitioners are required to be impleaded.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents opposes the petition herein. He argues that the learned Court below has rightly

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:40724]

[CW-215/2014]

passed the impugned order and it does not suffer from any irregularity, hence, no interference is called for.

¶39

In the instant case, the suit is for permanent injunction and, no relief has been sought against the petitioners in the pending suit. Applying the doctrine of dominus litis , plaintiffs cannot be compelled to implead the present petitioners, against whom they do not claim any relief. In view thereof, I find no grounds to interfere in the impugned order which has been passed on valid reasons contained therein.

¶40

No material irregularity in law or procedure has been committed by learned Court below, so as to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction herein.

¶41

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

Needless to say that dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioners to institute substantive proceedings to establish their right/title on the basis of which they have filed application for impleadment. They are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law

¶43

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶44

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.

¶45

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶46

21,22-jayesh/-

¶47

Fit for reporting? Yes/ No

Yashwant Singh and Anr. v. Narendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Singh and Anr. v. Narendra 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

Smt. Leela Mahatma Vs Smt. Satinder Gupta

Kewalram Godara Vs Shriram

M/S. Chauhan Brothers Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

J.K.Lakshmi Cement Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gautam Chand Vs Union of India