Delhi High Court
Anita Jain vs Ashok Kumar Arora & Ors on 17 January, 2018
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th January, 2018
+ CM(M) 72/2018 and CM 1924-1925/2018
ANITA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. R.N. Dubey, Ms. Vaishali Soni and
Mr. Honey Khanna, Advocates
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR ARORA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff of the civil suit (CS 1200/16)
instituted by her, inter alia, for recovery of possession of the subject
property, admittedly originally owned by Raj Kumar Jain, who has
since died. The petitioner claims to be distantly related to the said Mr.
Raj Kumar Jain. The suit, as presented, was directed against the first
respondent Ashok Kumar Arora who statedly had been inducted as
tenant in the subject property by Raj Kumar Jain during his lifetime.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property, after the
death of Raj Kumar Jain having inherited the rights under a Will
statedly left behind by him.
2. The defendant (first respondent) is resisting the suit declining to
hand over the possession of the suit property to the petitioner on the
contention that some other parties (i.e. second to seventh respondents)
were also claiming to be the owner of the subject property on the
ground that they were the class-II legal heirs, who had inherited the
interest.
3. The said other parties i.e. second to seventh respondents, moved
an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) seeking impleadment, inter alia, raising the contention
that the Will set up by the petitioner is not genuine, it being a fake and
fabricated document. The Additional District Judge has allowed the
said application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by order dated
12.09.2017, which is assailed by the petition at hand.
4. The petitioner takes exception to such parties being imposed on
her in the suit as against whom she did not wish to litigate. She takes
exception to the consequent enlargement of the scope of the suit. She
also takes exception to certain observations of the learned Additional
District Judge which have the effect, as per her submissions, of
doubting the genuineness of the Will on the basis of which she lays a
claim to the subject property.
5. Without doubt, the Additional District Judge could have
avoided any comments on the genuineness of the Will set up by the
petitioner. But then, it has to be borne in mind that such observations
were made only for purposes of dealing with the prayer under Order I
Rule 10 CPC which, being tentative in nature, will not be construed as
a final expression of opinion on merits of the contentions of either
side.
6. In the above facts and circumstances where the tenant in
possession of the subject property is ready to vacate, his predicament
being as to whom to hand over the possession, there being two sets of
parties claiming inheritance under the original owners / landlord, the
impleadment of the second to seventh respondents as defendants in the
suit by the impugned order is correct approach adopted by the trial
court. The impleadment of second to seventh respondents will assist
in reaching an appropriate decision on the pleas raised. From this
perspective, the said set of parties are definitely proper parties to the
suit, if not necessary.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition and the
applications filed therewith are dismissed. However, in order to be
fair to the petitioner as the plaintiff of the suit, she is given liberty to
bring in such amendments to the plaint as have become necessary after
the impleadment of the additional defendants.
8. To allay the apprehensions of the petitioner, it is clarified that
the observations on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, or of the
opposite party, in the impugned order of the Additional District Judge,
or of this court, shall not be construed as final expression on merits.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 17, 2018
yg
