Ramesh Chander Gupta vs Iqbal Singh & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1164 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Reserve: February 23, 2010
                                                        Date of Order: March 02, 2010
+ CM(M) 1159/2009
%                                                                          02.03.2010
     Ramesh Chander Gupta                                           ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. P. Kalra, Adv.

       Versus

       Iqbal Singh and others                                       ...Respondents
       Through:


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated

27.08.2009, whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC, was dismissed by the trial court.

2. The brief facts for deciding this petition are that respondents filed

a suit for possession and damages/mesne-profits, in respect of

property bearing no. TA-93, Khasra No. 64, Ravi Das Market,

Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi-100 019. In this civil suit Devi

Prashad was made sole defendant while the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 were

legal heirs of Smt. Manjeet Kaur. This suit was filed in the year 2008.

The Petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be

CM(M)1159/2009 Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Iqbal Singh and others Page 1 Of 3 impleaded as defendant in the suit on the ground that petitioner was in

possession of the property in question and had already filed a suit for

permanent injunction against Smt. Manjeet Kaur and others in respect

of the same property. In that suit Smt. Manjeet Kaur (during her

lifetime) was restrained by interim injunction from disturbing the

possession of the petitioner; and after death of Manjeet Kaur all her

legal heirs, who were plaintiffs in the suit pending before the trial court,

being LRs were bound by the injunction order. Since the property in

question was already subject matter of litigation between the parties in

the suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was a necessary party in

this suit as well and he should be impleaded as a defendant.

3. This application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court,

without even discussing the facts as mentioned in the application

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and without considering how the petitioner

was not a necessary party or proper party. The trial court only

observed that since it was the case of the respondents (plaintiffs in the

suit) that the defendant in the suit has sold the property to Mohit

Gupta and plaintiffs had purchased the property from Ramphal and

sold the same to Mohit Gupta, the applicant was not a necessary party

and he dismissed the application.

4. I find that the order of the trial court is totally perverse. The trial

court had not discussed the basic facts pleaded by the

applicant/petitioner as to why he was a necessary party. The trial court

CM(M)1159/2009 Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Iqbal Singh and others Page 2 Of 3 also did not touch upon the fact that the same property was subject

matter of litigation between the applicant and the respondent before

another competent court that had issued an injunction and the

judgment passed by that court would make the suit before the trial

court as infructuous.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27.08.2009

of the trial court is set-aside. The application of the petitioner under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands allowed. He will be impleaded as a

defendant in the trial court and shall be allowed to contest the suit filed

by the respondent.

March 02, 2010                                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ashish




CM(M)1159/2009    Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Iqbal Singh and others      Page 3 Of 3