Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Malhotra vs Lieutenant Colonel (Retd) Ashok Kumar ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10701
1 MP-2393-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2393 of 2025
RAKESH MALHOTRA
Versus
LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RETD) ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta - Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashi Kushwah -
Advocate for the petitioner .
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by
XIIth District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit No.1038/2024 whereby
two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC
mentioning the fact that there is a non-joinder of necessary parties and two
applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the necessary parties
have been rejected.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial
Court has rejected the said applications on the ground that merely because of
depositing the amount in the Banks i.e. State Bank of India, Punjab National
Bank and Post Office by the parties, it cannot be said that the Banks have any
interest in the matter and apart from this, the tenant of the disputed property
does not have any ownership right in the property, hence they cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10701
2 MP-2393-2025
considered to be necessary and proper parties. In Para 6 of the plaint, the
details of moveable properties i.e. bank accounts and FDs of their
predecessor Haveli Ram Malhotra have been mentioned and in Para 8 of the
plaint, it is clearly mentioned that all properties of their predecessor are in
dispute but despite that the applications filed by the petitioner for impleading
Banks and tenant as necessary parties have been rejected. If the Banks are
allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the matter, directions can be issued
for proportionate apportionment of the amount deposited by their
predecessor. Unless the Banks are impleaded as parties, they cannot be
supposed to comply with the order if any passed in the matter. The another
property, which is immovable property, is in possession of tenant, therefore,
the tenant is also a necessary party but despite that the applications filed by
the petitioner for impleading the Banks i.e State Bank of India, Punjab
National Bank and Post Office and the tenant as parties have been rejected
by the trial Court. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated
17.04.2025 be set-aside and the applications filed by the petitioner for
impleading the Banks i.e State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Post
Office and the tenant as parties be allowed.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Banks are not
necessary or interested party because the Banks are just custodian of the
amount which has been deposited in the Bank accounts and FDs of their
predecessor and for proportionate apportionment of the amount, the Banks
are not required to be impleaded as party. Moreso, in the plaint, no relief has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10701
3 MP-2393-2025
been sought against the Banks and tenant, therefore, no illegality has been
committed by learned trial Court in rejecting the applications filed by the
petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
4. Even otherwise, this is a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of
interference as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini
Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329,
wherein certain guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court, which
are as under:-
"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no
jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or
perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to
ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority.
Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference.
Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not
for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner."
5. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
after going through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) , no case for interference is made
out. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is just and proper
and does not call for any interference in the present petition.
6. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10701
4 MP-2393-2025
