Rajasthan High Court
Smt Mangala Natani Wife Of Late Sh. ... vs Nagar Nigam, Jaipur on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6057/2022
1. Smt Mangala Natani Wife Of Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Natani,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 232-A, Sokhiyo
Ka Rasta, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur.
2. Neeraj Natani Son Of Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Natani, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 232-A, Sokhiyo Ka
Rasta, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Through Commissioner, Nagar
Nigam, Deendayal Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hawamahal Zone West, Nagar
Nigam Jaipur, Near Chogaan Stadium, Jaipur.
3. Tara Chand Natani Son Of Sh. Diwan Bhawar Lal Natani,
Resident Of Plot No. 232, Sokhiyo Ka Rasta, Chokdi
Topkhana Desh, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur (This Person Has
Been Made Party Respondent By The Impugned Order
Dated 15.03.2022 Of Learned Trial Court)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra with
Mr. Ajay Verma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
26/04/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2022
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-
II in Civil Suit No.482/20 (911/19), whereby an application filed
by the respondent no.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section
151 CPC has been allowed.
(2 of 4) [CW-6057/2022]
The facts in brief are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit
for permanent injunction against the respondents no.1 and 2 with
regard to house no.232-A, Sokhiyo Ka Rasta, Chopdi Topkhana
Desh, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur stating therein that on the basis of
complaint filed by co-owners of the property namely Tara Chand
Natani and Vipin Natani, the respondents no.1 and 2 are bent
upon to demolish the construction and seize the property. On an
application filed by the respondent no.3, Shri Tara Chand Natani
seeking his impleadment, the learned trial Court vide its order
dated 15.03.2022 impleaded him as defendant no.3.
Assailing the order dated 15.03.2022, learned counsel for
the petitioners contended that the respondent no.3 is not a
necessary party as no relief has been claimed against him. He
submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 are not only trying to
demolish the construction in the subject property; but, are also
trying to seize the same on the false complaints made by the
respondent no.3. He submitted that he is operating a guest house
in the premises in question on the strength of a license issued by
the competent authority vide notification dated 11.06.2012 issued
by Department of Tourism of Govt. of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan
Tourism Development Corporation has found the allegation leveled
by the respondent no.3 of operating a guest house in violation of
the Rules and Regulations, to be false.
Drawing attention of this Court towards the family settlement
executed between the parties, learned counsel submitted that
partition of the subject property has already taken place with
separate portion of the petitioners and the respondent no.3.
He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and
the order impugned dated 15.03.2022 be quashed and set aside.
(3 of 4) [CW-6057/2022]
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3
submitted that admittedly he is co-owner of the property in
question and since his substantial rights are likely to be adversely
affected in case the suit is decreed, he is a necessary party to the
litigation. He submitted that the order impugned has been passed
by the learned trial Court in exercise of its judicious discretion
which does not warrant any interference of this Court under its
supervisory jurisdiction. He, in support of his submissions, relies
upon an Apex Court judgment in case of Ajiji Momonji & Co. Vs.
Lalji Mavji and Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 379.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the respondent no.3 is co-owner of the subject
property, i.e., house no.232-A as is evident from averments in
Para 1 of the plaint. Further, in their reply to the application filed
by the respondent no.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section
151 CPC, the petitioners have admitted that Main
Gate/Passage/Chowk (Veranda) and staircase between them are
common. Since, as per the plaintiffs' case, they are facing threat
of demolition of construction and seizure of the subject property,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent no. 3 being
co-owner of the property, is at least a proper party and the
learned trial Court has committed no error in impleading him as a
party defendant. Their Lordships have, in case of Ajiji Momonji &
Co. (supra) held that where presence of the party is necessary for
complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no
relief is sought him, he is a proper party.
The order dated 15.03.2022 which has been passed by the
learned trial Court in exercise of its judicious discretion does not
suffer from any patent jurisdictional error warranting interference
(4 of 4) [CW-6057/2022]
of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
LAKSHYA SHARMA /83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
