Ram Shakal Singh And Another vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 36428 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Shakal Singh And Another vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others on 6 November, 2024

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173508
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12557 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Shakal Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Pramod Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,R.V. Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs-petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Manu Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Sri B.K. Tripathi, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

The short question engaging attention of the Court is as to whether the trial court as well as the revisional court has rightly allowed the application filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. or not.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that according to petitioners they had purchased the land in question through a registered sale-deed in the year 1973 while the contesting respondents claim that land has been allotted to them by Gaon Sabha in the year 1978. Earlier, a civil suit was filed by contesting respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the year 2012 in respect of the same property. Petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State in the year 2018. He further contends that as the claim of both the parties are based on different premise the court below was not correct to allow the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents submits that dispute is in respect of the same property and they are necessary party to be heard in the suit filed by plaintiffs-petitioners in the year 2018 as it affects their right. According to him, the land in question has been allotted by Gaon Sabha in the year 1978 and they are still in possession.

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as judgment of both court below.

I find that there is no infirmity in allowing the application filed by contesting respondent nos. 5 and 6 under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.11.2024

V.S.Singh