Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rachna vs Vijay on 6 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 6144 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RACHNA W/O OMPRAKASH BHARTIYA,
(SADHWI- DR. APARAJITA NANDGIRI GURUSHRI,
MAHAMANDLESHWAR 1008 SWAMISHRI J.
[CHITTAPRAKASHANANDJI GIRI, VRINDAVAN
DHARM) AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
(SANYASI) R/O BAKAWA PUNARWAS, VILLAGE
RUPKHEDA, VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA, TEHSIL
SANAWAD, DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK PHADKE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VIJAY S/O SHRI MISHRILAL BHAMORIYA, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL SANAWAD,
DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJAY S/O BALIRAM GULIYA, AGED ABOUT 23
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL SANAWAD
DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JAYRAM S/O NATTHU PATEL, AGED ABOUT 45
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL SANAWAD
DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHHAJJU S/O SHRIRAM HINGLA PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL SANAWAD
DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BABLU S/O SHRIRAM (HINGLA) PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL
SANAWAD DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 10-05-2024
16:04:09
2
PRADESH)
6. JITENDRA S/O NATTHU PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA TEHSIL SANAWAD
DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SATYENDRA S/O DURGARAM (PUJARA) PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE VILLAGE AND POST BAKAWA
TEHSIL SANAWAD DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GAURAV LAAD - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Civil
Suit No.29-A/2022 by the Ist Civil Judge- Junior Divison, Sanawad, District-
Khargone whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC preferred
by the defendants for impleading third parties to the suit has been allowed.
2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for permanent injunction
with respect to the suit property contending that the same was transferred in her
favour by the erstwhile owner Santosh Das by way of a registered gift deed
dated 19.09.2022 and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with her
possession over the same and are attempting to dispossess her therefrom. The
defendants have contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their written statement to
the same.
3. During course of proceedings before the trial Court the defendants
filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading certain
parties to the suit submitting that the suit property is an 'Ashram' which is being
governed by a Committee members of which are necessary parties to the suit
and are required to be heard. Though the application was contested by the
plaintiff but has been allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order.
4. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that the
suit is for permanent injunctions based on title said to have been derived by
virtue of gift deed executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the plaintiff.
Interference with possession by the defendants is alleged. The contention of the
defendants is that the suit property is an Ashram and is governed by a
Committee and its president, secretary etc. are required to be impleaded as
parties. The suit has not been filed for declaration of title but has been filed for
permanent injunctions simplicitor. The dispute is hence between the plaintiff and
defendants alone and relief has been sought for by plaintiff against defendants
alleging threat to her possession. No relief has been claimed by her against any
third person who are hence not necessary parties to the suit. It is to be
observed that the application for impleadment has been filed by the defendants
and not by the proposed parties. The parties who are alleged to be running the
disputed property as an Ashram have themselves not come forward for being
impleaded as parties to the suit. In any case the contentions on the basis of
which the defendants have sought impleadment of those persons as parties to
the suit can very well be raised and substantiated by them during the trial and
for that purpose it is not necessary to implead those parties as person to the
suit.
5. In the application preferred by defendants it has not been shown as to
in what manner the right, title and interest of the proposed parties to the suit
shall be effected in any manner by the ultimate decision which shall be rendered
in the suit. It is only on that consideration that it can be decided whether a
particular party is or is not a necessary party to the suit. The grounds on which
defendants had sought impleadment of third parties hence are not such which
necessitate their impleadment. In such circumstances the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the defendants in M.P. No.649 of 2021 [Smt.
Kankubai and another vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 08.08.2023]
and of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal 6191 of 2021 [Anathula Sudhakar vs
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors decided on 25.03.2008] do not help
him in any manner.
6. Thus, as a result of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has
committed an error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the
CPC filed by the defendants. The impugned order dated 15.09.2023 thus
cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the application preferred by the
defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC stands rejected.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
