Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Devi Dayal vs Ashok Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4983 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4983 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Dayal vs Ashok Kumar on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

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)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter