Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Lal vs Raja Ram And Anr on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14612/2013
Narayan Lal S/o Shri Pakaji, by caste Choudhary, aged about 53
years, resident of Wadia. At present Khinwada, Tehsil-Desuri,
District-Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Raja Ram S/o Shri Ramaji, by caste Choudhary, resident of
Wadia. At present Khinwada, Tehsil-Desuri, District-Pali.
2. Puna Ram S/o Shri Ramaji, by caste Choudhary, resident of
Wadia. At present Khinwada, Tehsil-Desuri, District-Pali.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
Mr. Rajendra Katariya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment/Order
06/04/2022
The matter comes up on an application (01/2022) preferred
on behalf of the petitioner for preponement of the date.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is being heard and decided finally today itself.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Bali in Civil Original Suit No. 02/2010, whereby, the application
preferred by respondent No.2-Puna Ram under Order 1 Rule 10
read with Section 151 CPC for impleading him as a party in the
suit was allowed and he was impleaded as a party in the matter.
(2 of 3) [CW-14612/2013]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Puna Ram
has got nothing to do with the tenancy of the subject suit
property. He submits that the petitioner is the rightful owner of
the suit property in question which was rented out to respondent
No.1-Raja Ram vide Rent Deed dated 26.09.2008. He further
submits that the suit for eviction was preferred by the petitioner
on various grounds. He submits that the application preferred by
Puna Ram for his impleadment as a party in the case is baseless
and since he is not connected with the tenancy of the suit
property, thus, the learned trial court has wrongly impleaded him
as a party in the present case vide its order dated 26.11.2013.
He, therefore, prays that the order dated 26.11.2013 may be
quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2-Puna Ram should
not be allowed to participate in the suit proceedings.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Puna
Ram submits that Puna Ram is a necessary party in the
proceedings as the property in question was purchased by the
petitioner Narayan Lal, in which, a huge sum was contributed by
Puna Ram. He also submits that Puna Ram is using the suit
property for his business activities for a pretty long time. He
further submits that the telephone and electricity bills are also in
his name and, therefore, he is a necessary party in the
proceedings before the learned trial court.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned
Trial court.
It is an admitted fact that petitioner-Narayan Lal is the
owner of the suit property which was rented out to one Raja Ram
vide Rent Deed dated 26.09.2008. Since the present case is only
(3 of 3) [CW-14612/2013]
in relation to the eviction of suit property against Raja Ram and
the same was not disputed before the learned trial court,
therefore, the impleadment of Puna Ram as a party is not
necessary in the present proceedings. It is also noted that even if
applicant-Puna Ram has contributed for purchasing the suit
property and has some interest in the same, it will not necessitate
his impleadment in these proceedings for the simple reason that
the purchase of the suit property by Puna Ram with Narayan Lal is
not the subject matter of the present case, much less, the said
transaction was never challenged or questioned before any court
of law. Present is a simple case of eviction of tenant Raja Ram
from the property of Narayan Lal. Therefore, this court feels that
Puna Ram is not a necessary party to the proceedings and the
application preferred by him under Order 1 Rule 10 read with
Section 151 CPC was wrongly allowed by the learned Trial Court.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2013 impleading
Puna Ram as a party in the proceedings is quashed and set aside.
Stay application and other pending applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
25-/Vivek/Kashish/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
