Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Imarti Devi vs Smt. Vidya Devi on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6250/2021
1. Smt. Imarti Devi D/o Shri Birbal Das W/o Shri Mohan
Das, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Swamy, R/o Village
Hardaswali, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Chawli D/o Shri Birbal Das W/o Shri Magh Das, Aged
About 50 Years, By Caste Swamy, R/o Chak 9 As, Tehsil
Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Shri Birbal Das W/o Shri Anant
Ram, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Swamy, R/o Vill.
Rajpura Piperan, Tehsil Suratagarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Smt. Bala Devi D/o Shri Birbal Das W/o Shri Kaloo Ram,
Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Swamy, R/o Vil.
Raiyanwali, At Present- Near Gogamedi Khileribas, Tehsil
And District- Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Vidya Devi W/o Shri Sushil Kumar, Aged About 68
Years, By Caste Agrawal, R/o 164, Lakshya Homes,
Avinash Nagar, Bharkhera, District Bhopal (M.p.) Through
Her Power Of Attorney-Holder Babu Ram S/o Shri Sukh
Lal, Aged About 78 Years, R/o 16- D Block, Tehsil And
Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Rameshwar Das S/o Shri Birbal Das, By Caste Swamy,
R/o Vill. Raiyanwali, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
3. Shrawan Das S/o Shri Birbal Das, By Caste Swamy, R/o
Vill. Raiyanwali, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik
(2 of 3) [CW-6250/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
13/07/2021
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated
19.2.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Suratgarh (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit
No.78/2012 whereby, the application under Order 1 Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 CPC preferred on behalf of
the petitioners with a prayer for impleading them as
party respondents in the suit for specific performance
filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 against the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been rejected.
The trial court has taken into consideration the fact
that the agreement to sale, for which, the suit for specific
performance was filed has been executed by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the respondent No.1.
It is also observed by the trial court that the petitioner-
applicants were not the party to the said agreement to
sale. The contention of the petitioners that they have
share in the property mentioned in the agreement to sale
is considered by the trial court and it is observed that
even if it is assumed that the petitioners are having share
in the land, which purported to be sold by agreement to
(3 of 3) [CW-6250/2021]
sale, then also, the court is competent to pass partial
decree up to the extent of share of respondent Nos.2 and
3. The trial court is of the opinion that the petitioners are
not necessary party for adjudication of the suit and if
they are made party, then, the trial of the suit will delay,
which is pending since 2012.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
after going through the impugned order, I do not find any
illegality in the same.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition is
also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
39-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
