Ishwar Prasad vs Ashok Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 16556 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15158/2021 Ishwar Prasad S/o Shri Durga Prasad, Aged About 50 Years, Jayal Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Govind Ram, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Secretary Pradeep Purohit S/o Shri Devraj Purohit, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur. Mandir Shir Banshiwala Seva Samiti Trust, Jayal.

4. Vice President Ghanshyam Purohit S/o Shri Gordhan Purohit, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur. Mandir Shir Banshiwala Seva Samiti Trust, Jayal.

5. President Pawan Purohit S/o Shri Mangi Lal Purohit, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur. Mandir Shir Banshiwala Seva Samiti Trust, Jayal.

6. Treasurer Mahaveer Purohit S/o Shri Rang Lal Purohit, Jayal, Tehsl Jayal, District Nagaur. Mandir Shir Banshiwala Seva Samiti Trust, Jayal.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment 08/11/2021

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2021,

passed by learned Civil Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur (hereinafter

referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby impleadment application

dated 17.02.2021, filed by respondent No.1 and 2, has been

allowed.

2. Impugning the above order dated 22.09.2021, Mr. Rathore,

learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No.1

and 2 have no locus to be impleaded as a party, inasmuch as

neither any relief against them has been claimed nor any of their

rights are likely to be affected by disposal or any order passed in

the suit in question.

3. Learned counsel further argued that respondent No.1-Ashok

Kumar who has claimed himself to be adopted son of Govind Ram

has a right to worship as he belonged to a different sect.

4. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the family

tree drawn in the plaint and argued that the petitioner has only

claimed 1 day's right of worship in a week and the respondents

can claim their rights out of the remaining six days of the week.

5. Heard.

6. The order under challenge is, an order accepting an

impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code that

was filed by the respondent No.1 and 2.

7. Petitioner's contention is that respondents belonging to other

sect are not entitled for their right to worship in the temple cannot

be determined unless the applicant - Ashok Kumar is impleaded as

a party.

8. The order under challenge has not resulted in any

miscarriage of justice. Hence, the interference of this Court under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted as

held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Shalini Shyam

Shetty & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)

SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.,

reported in 2003(6) SCC 675.

9. The present writ petition is thus, dismissed.

10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 68-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)