Ms. Lalitya Kumari And Ors. Lrs Of ... vs Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1776 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Mukjerjee, J.

IA No. 7895 (U/o 10 R 1)

1. This is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by M/s Ashapura Vikas Samiti. Arguments on this application were heard for about an hour, since almost all the counsel representing the various parties, wanted to be head in opposition to the plea of the impleadment of the applicant.

2. The pleas in opposition ranged from the argument that the present case being a suit for partition therefore third party should not be permitted to ventilate their causes of action/grievances before this Court in the present proceedings, to the vehement contention that the documents under which the applicant claims its status for seeking impleadment, are themselves manipulated/ante-dated documents, and this is a device by applicant to get over its legal hurdles.

3. I do not propose to deal with this matter in great detail since what is under consideration is an application for impleadment, and this Court ought not to pronounce upon or make any observation upon any aspect except what is strictly required for holding the applicant to be or not to be categorised as either a necessary or a proper party.

4. I find from the record that the Jaipur Development Authority has been imp leaded as a party on an application moved by them in this behalf. The relevant order of Hon'ble Mukul Mudgal, J. is dated 13.7.2000.

5. Against the said order by which Jaipur Development Authority was imp leaded as a party in the partition suit, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in the present proceedings.

6. The said appeal FAO (OS) 349/2000 was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra, vide Division Bench order dated 16.8.2001. It is noted submitted that after the Hon'ble Single Judge and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had decided the matter against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is still pending.

7. The case of the application is that the property in question which is Item No.14 of the amended list of immovable properties in Schedule 1 in the present proceedings, had been sold by defendant No.1 to the Society Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited long back sometime in the year 1975. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in their favor, vide single Bench judgment on writ petition dated 20.3.2002, and that even though same is an appeal with a stay order in operation, yet there has been no reversal or contrary judgment thereto.

8. It is also submitted that it is the applicant alone who can effectively oppose the contention of vesting of the land in its favor, as claimed by the Jaipur Development Authority who have been imp leaded as a party by this Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant further submitted that there is a booklet formally issued by Jaipur Development Authority, which is showing the names of all the individual plot owners of this applicant Society.

10. The applicant Society also relies upon the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment Conversion & Regulation) Act whereunder even persons having rights under an agreement to sell are entitled to orders for conversion in their favor.

11. The applicants claims to have applied as far back in the year 1982, and payment of the amounts have been accepted by the competent authorities.

12. The applicant also rely on a Single Bench pronouncement of the Rajasthan High Court in their favor.

13. The applicant submits that the actual conversion is held up only on account of an appeal and stay order, but keeping in view the interest of the applicant in the subject matter of the immovable properties in this case, in relation to Item No. 14 of Schedule 1 of the amended list, the applicant is atleast a proper party if not a necessary party.

14. In view of the order dated 13.7.2000 passed by Single Judge of this Court which was upheld by the Division Bench and also the judgment of the Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in favor of the applicants, which though in appeal and under stay, has not been reversed, in amy view the applicant would be entitled to be imp leaded as defendant No.8 in the present suit.

15. However I propose to make the impleadment subject to certain conditions, since during the arguments it was submitted by learned counsel opposing the request, inter- alia, that this will result in opening a pandoras box and delaying further the proceedings in the present suit. In rejoinder to the same, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he would leave it to the Court to place any reasonable conditions. i therefore direct that the impleadment of the applicant will be subject to the condition that within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the applicant will be filing an affidavit limiting itself to the property which is enumerated at Item No.14 of the amended Schedule 1 List of immovable properties. I clarify that permissible pleadings for the applicant after impleadment will be confined to the said affidavit only with advance copies to all other parties who will have an opportunity to reply to the same. The applicant will be entitled to file rejoinder affidavit to the same for which not more than one opportunities will be available. In the event of default applicant shall stand precluded from the benefit of this order. Subject to the conditions, the application is allowed and applicant is imp leaded as defendant No.8 in the present suit. Amended Memo of Parties be filed within a week.

Application is allowed in above terms.