Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Jain vs Mahesh Jain on 22 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 6950 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GAURAV JAIN S/O LATE KAILASH CHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O NEAR
OLD POWER HOUSE, IN FRONT OF RAJ VILLA GARDEN
SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSUMAN SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHESH JAIN S/O SHRI MADANLAL JAIN R/O
OLD POWER HOUSE CHOWK, SATNA, TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI B.P. YADAV
ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/7
passed by the trial court whereby application of the petitioner under Order 1
Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected by the trial court.
2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that
present respondent No. 1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction against the State Government alleging that the said land
was owned by some private person and is a private property and that private
person had given the said land in will in favour of the father of the plaintiff. It is
further alleged in the plaint that now the government is snatching his right over
the land and government authority started to treat the land as government
property. On these allegations suit has been filed against the authority of the
State.
3. The suit has been contested by the State and the State has taken stand
that the property is not a private property and the property actually belongs to
the State. The suit is pending before the trial court.
4. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC for being impleaded in the suit on the ground that the State Government is
not properly defending the suit and he being member of public is interested
with the property of the State Government should be safe. It is further
submitted in the application that being a member of public he is interested in the
property of the State and thus he should be impleaded as party in the suit.
5. During the course of the argument learned counsel for petitioner has
pointed out to some documents wherein the father of the plaintiff has in some
other proceedings stated about some other source of title different from the will
on the land in question. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner would bring all such documents on record.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff submits that
the source of title of a private person is not relevance for the purpose of
adjudication of the present suit because the suit is against the government and
the plaintiff is required to establish that it is not government property. It is not a
suit between the private person where the source of title has relevance. In the
present case the present petitioner has not stated any of his personal right or
interest in the property and it is simply submitted that he is a member of public
and since the State is not properly contesting the suit he should be given
permission to be impleaded in the suit so that the government property may be
safe.
7. On the other hand it is the contention of the plaintiff that the petitioner
is a busy body having no personal right or interest about the property.
8. As per Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, the court is having power to join
the name of any person as the plaintiff or defendant whose presence before the
Court is necessary in order to enable the court to properly, effectively and
completely adjudicate upon all the matters and settle all the question involved in
the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 refers to a judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Vidur Impex & Traders Private Ltd. and others Vs.
Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others reported in 2012(8)SCC
384 wherein it has been held in para 41 that a necessary party is a person who
ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective
decree cannot be passed by the court. It is further held that a proper party is
a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively
and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a
person in whose favour of or against whom a decree is to be passed.
9. It is the case of the present petitioner that he is a proper party and
his presence is relevant before the Court to completely, effectively and
properly adjudicate upon the matter.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu
Kathuria and others 2013(15) SCC 534, which was a case where a
neighbour was claiming easemantary right. Thus in this case the applicant
was having some right or was claiming some rights in the suit property.
11. In the present case the petitioner is not claiming any personal or
private right, interest in the suit property. His only contention is that his
presence would enable the court to effectively decide the lis.
12. The plaintiff is claiming title against State. The state is custodian
of its record and merely because the petitioner intends to bring on record
some interse private transaction would not effect the title of the State in any
manner and the plaintiff has to establish his title against the State. The
petitioner does not state in the application and not able to demonstrate
before this Court that the petitioner is in possession of some such
government record which the government cannot bring before the court or
has willfully not placed before the court. The case of claiming title against
the State is different from the case wherein title is claimed against a private
person. Even the State has opposed application of the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that his
presence would be effective and would enable the State to defend it title in
the pending Civil Suit, no interference is warranted in the matter. Petition
is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
