Bombay High Court
Sheikh Karim Shaikh Chunnu And ... vs Sharad Manikrao Chobe And Others on 1 September, 2016
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2013
1. Sheikh Karim s/o Shaikh Chunnu,
Age : 31 years, Occu. Agri.
2. Khushiyabee w/o Sheikh Chunnu,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agri.
Both r/o Patode Wadgaon, PETITIONERS
Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad (Ori. Defts.1&2)
VERSUS
1. Sharad s/o Manikrao Chobe,
Age : 63 years, Occu. Agri.
and Business, R/o Chetna Nagar,
Aurangabad
2. Dr. Shyam s/o Manikrao Chobe,
Age : 59 years, Occu. Agri.
And Business,
R/o as above
3. Neeta w/o Sharad Chobe,
Age ; 63 years, Occu. Agri.
And Business
4. Dr. Alka w/o Shyam Chobe,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Medical
Practitioner
5. The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS
through Tahsildar, Paithan, (Nos. 1 to 4 are
District Aurangabad Ori. Plaintiffs
and No. 5 is ori.
Defendant No. 3)
----
Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.H. Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Mr. S.W. Munde, A.G.P. for respondent No. 5/State
----
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:45:50 :::
2 cra133-2013
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 1st September, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
21st March, 2013, passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Aurangabad below application (Exh-21)
in Regular Civil Suit No. 2168 of 2012, whereby it came
to be rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 instituted Regular Civil
Suit No. 2168 of 2012 for injunction simplicitor in the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad.
Respondent No. 5 - the Tahsildar, Paithan has no concern
whatsoever with the said lis. However, in order to
shift the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Paithan to
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad,
the Tahsildar came to be added as defendant No. 3 in the
said Suit. The petitioners, therefore, filed
application (Exh-21) before the learned Trial Judge
pointing out the said fact, requested to delete
3 cra133-2013
defendant No. 3 - Tahsildar from the array of the
parties and return the plaint to respondent Nos. 1 to 4
for being filed before the proper Court. However, the
learned Trial Judge wrongly rejected the application
(Exh-21). He, therefore, submits that the impugned
order may be set aside, the application (Exh-21) may be
allowed, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 may be directed to
deleted the name of respondent No. 5 from the plaint and
the plaint may be ordered to be returned to respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 for being filed before the proper Court.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that there are specific
averments made in paragraph No. 8 of the plaint showing
concern of respondent No. 5 - the Tahsildar with the
dispute between the parties. The Tahsildar has been
rightly impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the plaint.
Since the Tahsildar is a Government Officer, the suit
has been rightly filed in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Aurangabad. He submits that the
learned Trial Judge rightly rejected the application
(Exh-21) and prays that the Civil Revision Application
may be dismissed.
4 cra133-2013
5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in paragraph 8 of the
plaint, alleged that after execution of sale-deed dated
14th June, 2011 in favour of Ramnarayan Agrawal and
Amitabh Agrawal, the remaining land admeasuring 0.36
Ares out of Block No. 26, was still owned and possessed
by them. However, respondent No. 5 did not take entry
in the revenue record to that effect. This is how
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have shown concern of respondent
No. 5 - the Tahsildar, with the dispute between the
parties.
6. It is the choice of the plaintiff to add as
many as defendants to the suit as desired. If any
party/defendant has any grievance for its impleadment
to the suit on the ground that it was not either proper
or necessary party, it may approach the Court and seek
deletion of its name from the array of the defendants.
Any third person cannot request the Court for deletion
of such a party from the array of defendants.
7. In the present case, respondent No. 5 (the
Tahsildar) did not file any application before the Trial
Court seeking deletion of his name from the array of the
5 cra133-2013
defendants on any count. If a suit is filed against any
party which has no concern whatsoever with the dispute -
subject matter of the suit, that party can claim heavy
compensation/costs from the plaintiff. The plaintiff
would carry the risk of paying compensation/costs to
such a party. However, the plaintiff cannot be
compelled to delete the name of any defendant in the
absence of any objection raised to that effect by a
party added to the suit. If that be so, the learned
Trial Judge cannot be said to have committed any mistake
in refusing to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to delete
the name of respondent No. 5 from the array of the
defendants.
8. As long as respondent No. 5 is a party before
the Trial Court, the suit would proceed in the Court of
Senior Civil Judge at Aurangabad. There is no question
of directing the plaintiff to take back the plaint for
being filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Paithan since respondent No. 5 - Tahsildar is
a party thereto. In the circumstances, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the learned Trial Court below application (Exh-21).
6 cra133-2013
The Civil Revision Application is devoid of any
substance. It is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
order:-
9. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
The Rule stands discharged accordingly. No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
ig JUDGE
npj/cra133-2013
