Jitendra Barjatya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6076 MP

                                  - : 1 :-



           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      BENCH AT INDORE
          (S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                         M.P. No.893/2021
               (Jitnedra Vs. State of M.P. and others)

      Shri R. B. Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

      Shri    Siddharth   Jain,    learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the
respondent/State.
      Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the
      Respondent [R-3].
      None for the respondent No.4 despite service.

                              ORDER

Date: 27.09.2021[ Indore]:

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2021 whereby an application seeking impleadment himself as a defendant in pending civil suit No.167/2020 has been dismissed.

According to the petitioner, he is resident of House No.60, Vinay Nagar, Kesarbag Road, Indore. On authorization of members of Vijay Nagar Housing Society, he made a complaint to the respondent No.1 to 3 in respect of causing pollution by respondent No.4, i.e. a Vimal Marriage Garden. On his complaint, M.P. Pollution board issued a show cause notice, therefore vide order dated 29.12.2016 has directed respondent No. 4 to close the activities of marriage garden. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.01.2020 has also directed respondent No.4 to stop its activities. The aforesaid two orders gave a cause of action to respondent No.4 to file the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

- : 2 :-

In the said suit the present petitioner has not been impleaded as defendant on whose complaint the impugned actions were taken. Hence the present petitioner filed an application under Order, 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as defendant No.4 in the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and accordingly, vide order dated 13.01.2021, same has been dismissed on the ground that present petitioner neither the necessary nor proper party in the suit. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action has been taken by M.P. Pollution Board as well Sub Divisional Officer on a complaint made by the petitioner in a representative capacity and if the impugned orders are quashed by the Civil Court, the petitioner would be adversely affected. His presence is required for adjudication of suit.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the State has no objection, if this petitioner is impleaded as defendant in the suit or he may called as witness in the suit.

Mr. Dharmadhikari learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 is formal party in this case. It is correct that respondent No. 3 has received the complainants against plaintiff.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is correct that the plaintiff is dominus litus of this case. He has an option to select the defendants against whom, he would seek the relief. Since the respondent No.4 has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration against the defendants, who have issued the order dated 29.12.2016 and 30.01.2020. These orders were issued on a complaint made by present petitioner as an authorized representative of Vinay Nagar Rahwashi Sangh. The

- : 3 :-

petitioner has filed the copy of complaint. Although no relief has been claimed against the petitioner, but he would be affected final outcome of the judgment in the suit, a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, and a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for the complete and final decision on the issues involved in the proceedings. Hence presence of the petitioner would be necessary to bring correct an complete facts for adjudication of the case. Despite service of notice, no one is appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, hence, impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to allow the application formerly under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and implead the petitioner as defendant No.4.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2021.09.30 17:39:18 +05'30'