Kishore Sahu vs Maya Satpute
2023 Latest Caselaw 8783 MP

                                                                       1
                                        IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                            ON THE 14 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                                         MISC. PETITION No. 2858 of 2023

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       KISHORE SAHU S/O HARIPRASAD SAHU, AGED ABOUT
                                       60   YEARS, OCCUPATION: PROPRIETOR SHIVOM
                                       BUILDERS R/O SHIVOM KUNJ BEHIND ZEE MAHASALE
                                       NEAR PRATAP SHALA MOHBE MARKET CHHINDWARA
                                       DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                       (BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       1.    MAYA SATPUTE W/O KRISHNARAO SATPURE R/ O
                                             OPPOSITE NEW SABJI MANDI CHHINDARA
                                             TAHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                       2.    MUNICIPAL   CORPORATION   CHHINDWARA,
                                             THROUGH      ITS    COMMISSIONER OFFICE
                                             OPPOSITE TO SHUKLA GROUND, CHHINDWARA
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       3.    NISHANT GUPTA S/O JAYNARAYAN GUPTA R/O
                                             KOLADHANA,    TEHSIL   AND    DISTRICT
                                             CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       4.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
                                             COLLECTOR,        CHHINDWARA DISTRICT
                                             CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the Signature Not Verified

following:

  SAN




Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.06.14 19:25:41 IST                                           ORDER

This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the proposed defendant, who is sought to be added by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the plaintiff Maya Satpute and which application has been allowed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division Chhindwara vide order dated 07.03.2023 on the ground that none of the reliefs have been sought against the present petitioner, and therefore, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court i n Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 384, as none of the six conditions prescribed therein are made out for impleadment the impugned order be set aside.

Shri G.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State is a formal party.

On perusal of the impugned order and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as was moved by the plaintiff, it is apparent that dispute raised by the plaintiff is that land contained in Survey No.288/1 has been sold by one Nishant Gupta, who was already defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in favour of M/s. Shivom Builders to proprietor Kishore Sahu and, therefore, it is necessary to implead him as a party.

On perusal of the reply which has been filed by the present petitioner, there is denial of the contentions put forth by the plaintiff whereas the fact of the matter is that there is no denial to the fact that land has been purchased by the present petitioner from Nishant Gupta, who is already defendant No.2 in the said suit. Thus, when judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Vidur Impex

Signature Not Verified SAN (supra) is examined, then it is mentioned that the Court can, at any stage of the

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct Date: 2023.06.14 19:25:41 IST

impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff

or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It is further held that in necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court.

When these aspects are taken into consideration that when there is no denial that petitioner has not purchased any land from Nishant Gupta, defendant No.2 and he is not a subsequent purchaser of the land and has not moved into the shoes of Nishant Gupta, who is already a defendant, impugned order passed by the Trial Court in allowing impleadment application cannot be faulted with. Thus, Miscellaneous Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.06.14 19:25:41 IST