Shri Mohinder Singh And Ors. vs Shri Madan Jha, Financial ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 7 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file reply. He submits that he will argue the application orally and rely on record.

2. The applicant, Ms. Jyoti Sikka by this application seeks impleadment as a respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition had been filed by Mohinder Singh & Ors., on 5.12.1984. The petitioners in the writ petition sought quashing of the order dated 13.11.1984, passed by the Financial Commissioner, as it maintained the withdrawal of plot No.415 from the allotment to the petitioner and retained the allotment to Gaon Sabha.

3. The applicant is a purchaser of 1 bigha of land vide Sale Deed dated 30.4.1987 from one Mishri, who is claimed to be the original owner and allottee from Gaon Sabha.

4. Before taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent to notice that this very applicant had earlier moved an application-CM.1661/90 for impleadment. The said application was also for impleadment, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.4.1990. Thereafter, the applicant moved another application bearing CM.No.7806/90 for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 5.12.2000. The applicant in support of CM.7806/90 had submitted that she did not have any knowledge of withdrawal of the earlier application and had not given her consent for the same. It was averred in the application that due to technical mistakes and errors made in the application, the same was withdrawn. The Court observed that the applicant may spell out the technical mistakes and errors in the earlier application and move an appropriate application within two weeks. The matter was directed to be listed as and when the application, duly supported with affidavit was filed. No such application was filed within stipulated time. Rather on 2.9.2002, none was present on behalf of the petitioner as also on 27.2.2003, when the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was restored vide order dated 14.5.2003. The present application C.M. No.9592/2003 came to be filed on 19.8.2003, which was also dismissed in default on 4.9.2003 and has been since restored, vide separate orders passed today in C.M. No. 10270/2003.

5. Mr. Mahender Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the application, submits that the applicant is an owner of 1 bigha of land, by virtue of Sale Deed, executed by Mishri, who has been allotted the land by the Gaon Sabha, under the confirmed scheme. He submits that the applicant is vitally interested in the outcome of the writ petition and in case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, it would cause prejudice to the applicant. He places reliance on Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others reported at . Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel submits that the applicant has a direct interest and legal right to be protected and his impleadment would also prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Further, reliance is placed on Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. reported at to the effect that impleadment could be done at any stage of proceedings.

6. Mr. Vohra in reply submits that petitioner was aggrieved by the order of consolidation dated 27.3.1982/1.4.1982, by which the plot No.415 allotted to the petitioner was withdrawn and it was directed to be vested in the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 30.11.1984. Immediately, thereafter petitioner preferred a writ petition and an order of status quo was passed on 6.12.1984. Mr. Vohra submits that the cause of action in the writ petition arises out of the order of the Consolidation Officer and the dismissal of the appeal by the Financial Commissioner. The present applicant was neither a party before the Consolidation Officer nor before the Financial Commissioner. He happens to be a stranger to the proceedings. The question to be considered is whether the applicant, nevertheless, should be allowed to be imp leaded by virtue of a Sale Deed, executed by an allottee of the Gaon Sabha, who has been allotted pursuant to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Financial Commissioner. The order of Consolidation Officer and the confirmation of the scheme is being defended by the Gaon Sabha as well as the NCT of Delhi. In the instant case, if the consolidation order and the scheme are upheld then the applicant would have no cause for any grievance. However, if the petitioner succeeds, then the land would not be vested in Gaon Sabha and subsequent transfer would be of no consequence. Mr. Vohra submits that in any case, the land would vest with the Consolidation Officer and not in Gaon Sabha. It is not necessary to go into this contention at this stage. In these circumstances, as discussed above and considering that neither the applicant nor the Predecessor-in-title were parties before the Consolidation Officer and the fact that the previous application moved for impleadment had been withdrawn as back as 4.4.1990, without any liberty being reserved, I am not inclined to entertain the present application. Mr. Rana submits that the Court vide order dated 5.9.2000, while dealing with the application CM.1661/90, had granted leave to move an appropriate application and spell out the technical mistakes and errors in the application, which led the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the same. This was required to be done within two weeks. No such application was moved and the present application was moved only on 19.8.2003 i.e. approximately after a period of three years. The explanation given of there being bereavements in the family one after the other does not, to my mind, explain the delay of three years. The factual discrepancies and errors, which are pointed out, were those, which could be corrected by an amendment and did not call for withdrawal of the application. Moreover, a perusal of the order dated 4.4.1990, shows that no such submission with regard to leave to present a fresh application due to the so-called technical errors was made. The order simplicitor is "dismissed as withdrawn."

In view of the foregoing discussion, application is dismissed.