Rahul vs Ramchandra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4000 MP

                                    1

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                    ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2022

                  MISC. PETITION No. 146 of 2022

     Between:-
   RAHUL S/O PARASCHAND , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS HANUMAN NIPANIYA, (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   KRISHNABAI W/O GOKUL , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK PAADAL, TEHSIL BADOTH
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   RAMKANIYABAI W/O KHEMCHAND , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK BHAYANA TEHSIL AGAR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   NIRMALADEVI W/O GOPAL , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK ROJANE TEHSIL BADOTH
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   GOVIND S/O BHANWARLAL , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE FOOLMAALE PURA AGAR, TEHSIL
   AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   KAILASH S/O LAXMAN , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
6. AGRICULTURE FOOLMAALE PURA AGAR, TEHSIL AGAR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE, ADVOCATE )

     AND

     RAMCHANDRA S/O SALAGRAM , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
1.
     OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     SHYAMLAL S/O SAALAGRAM , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
     BABULAL S/O SAALAGRAM , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
     BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. TRILOK CHANDRA S/O
4.
     BADRILAL AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. SOMDUISH S/O BADRILAL
5.
     AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. TRILOCHAN CHANDRA S/O
6.
     BADRILAL AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. SIMADEVI @ SUMAN W/O
7.
     MODSINGH AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                        2

    BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. URMILA DEVI W/O KALURAM
8.
    AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
    BADRILAL DECEASED THR. LRS. RAJESHWARI DEVI W/O
9.
    BADRILAL AGAR TEHSIL AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. COLLECTOR AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

      This petition coming on this day, the court passed the following:

                               ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by impugned order dated 23.9.2021 passed by 1st Civil Judge Junior Division Agar District Shajapur in civil suit No. 12A/2020 whereby an application under Section 151 of CPC filed by petitioners/defendants has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the petitioners/defendants for declaration of title and issuing permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit petitioners/defendants have filed an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial court but the trial court has rejected the same by stating that the suit is tenable against the petitioners. Therefore, this petition is filed before this Court.

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality. The impugned order is bad in law and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court. The impugned order is a non speaking, illegal, inoperative and also without jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of B.R. Patil Vs. Tulsa Y Sawkar and others in civil appeal No. 2652-2654 of 2013 decided on 9.2.2022 and judgment of Apex court in case of Shivnarayan (D) by LRS Vs. Maniklal (D) by LRS in civil appeal No. 1052/2019

decided on 6.2.2019. Learned counsel further contended that the present suit suffers from mis joinder of party and cause of action. Hence he prays that the impugned order be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by petitioner.

On perusal of the plaint filed before the trial court it reveals that respondent/plaintiff has filed the civil suit for declaration of title and issuing permanent injunction against all the defendants. As per prayer clause, same relief was claimed against all defendants.

Order 2 Rule 3 CPC permits a plaintiff or plaintiffs jointly interested to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or defendants jointly. Though it is necessary that all defendants should be interested in each of the relief claimed in the suit.

The citations filed by petitioner are not applicable in this present case.

After going through the record it is found that the impugned order passed by the court below is just and proper and also according to law. Therefore, 1st Civil Judge Junior Division Agar District Shajapur has not committed any error in dismissing the application under Section 151 of CPC filed by respondent/plaintiff. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.

Accordingly this Misc. petition is dismissed. C.C.as per rules.

(Anil Verma) Judge BDJ

Digitally signed by BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Date: 2022.03.25 11:00:52 +05'30'