Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4983 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2531/2019 Devi Dayal S/o Shri Shyam Chanda, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 6P, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Jalam Singh, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Kandi, Tehsil Noorpur, District Kangda (H.P.) At Present Resident Of Chakk 16A, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Mojaram S/o Jalam Singh,, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of House No. 124 A, Prajapat Colony, Uttamnagar, New Delhi, At Present Resident Of House No. 36, Basant Enclave, New Delhi.
3. Raghuveer Singh S/o Jalam Singh, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of House No. RZ 124 A, Prajapat Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Lrs Of Anoop Singh S/o Dayal Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
4/1. Manjeet Kaur W/o Dayal Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
4/2. Amandeep Kaur W/o Anoop Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
4/3. Rupinder Kaur D/o Anoop Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
4/4. Ravinder Kaur D/o Anoop Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
4/5. Karanveer Kaur D/o Anoop Singh,, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar. Miner Though Mother And Natural Guardian Amandeep Kaur W/o Anoop Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 40 H (B), Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain
Mr. Vipin Makkad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment / Order
04/04/2022
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 06.02.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Anoopgarh, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the application preferred by
the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the
suit was preferred by one Anoop Singh against the defendants-
Ashok Kumar & Ors. He submits that the suit was decreed ex-
parte in favour of the plaintiff Anoop Singh on 27.08.2008. He
further submits that after the suit was decreed in favour of Anoop
Singh, the Mutation Entries were also made in his favour and
thereafter, the present petitioner purchased part of the suit
property vide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.2009
(Annexure-3). Learned counsel argues that the learned trial court
vide order dated 17.11.2011 allowed the application preferred by
respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. restoring the suit at its
original position setting aside the ex-parte decree. He submits that
the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the ex-parte decree
had been set aside and when he came to knew that the original
plaintiff Anoop Singh has died and his legal representatives have
been brought on record, the factum of the pendency of the suit
came to his knowledge and, being a bonafide purchaser of the
part of the suit property, he preferred the application under Order
1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleading him as a defendant in the
matter.
Learned counsel submits that if the suit proceedings are
decided in his absence, then he will suffer an irreparable loss. He,
therefore, submits that the trial court committed an error while
rejecting his application preferred for impleadment as defendant
vide order dated 06.02.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the present
case as no relief has been sought against the present petitioner
and the suit is being prosecuted by the legal representatives of
Anoop Singh, who are on record. He further submits that in similar
circumstances, one more purchaser of the part of the suit property
preferred an application for impleadment as defendant in the
present case but the learned trial court rejected his application
vide order dated 18.05.2017. He, therefore, submits that the
learned trial court has rightly passed the order impugned in this
case.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the order dated 06.02.2019.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and when
the decree was in force, the part of the suit property was
purchased by him. Further, it is on record that the ex-parte decree
was set aside in the year 2011 and since then, the original plaintiff
Anoop Singh was prosecuting the trial court proceedings. After the
death of Anoop Singh in the year 2018, the legal representatives
of Anoop Singh have been brought on record and now they are
proceeding with the matter before the trial court and the learned
trial court observed that the suit proceedings are almost on the
verge of completion as only final arguments remain to be done in
the case as the evidence and other proceedings have already been
completed. Since the suit is being prosecuted before the learned
trial court on behalf of the legal representatives of Anoop Singh
and no relief is sought against the present petitioner, therefore,
the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of the
petitioner for impleadment as a defendant vide its order dated
06.02.2019.
In view of the discussions made above, no interference in the
order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned trial court is
warranted by this Court. The writ petition is bereft of merit and
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Stay application and other pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
41-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!