Rajasthan High Court
B.G. Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs Jaipur Development Authority on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5797/2021
B.G. Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
----Petitioners
Versus
Jaipur Development Authority and Anr.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with
Mr. Yashodhar Pandey and
Mr. Sandesh Khandelwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
29/08/2022
The matter comes up on an application (2/2022) filed by the
applicant-Shri Ram Sharan Singh seeking his impleadment as
respondent in the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that subject land is
public land and he has filed a D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11708/2021 against the petitioner and other respondents
seeking an enquiry into the illegal uses of the land whereupon, a
Division Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated 25.10.2021,
granted liberty to the State/JDA to examine their records and to
take such remedy as may be available to them under the law. He
submits that the action against the petitioners has been taken by
the respondents/JDA on his representation and hence, he may be
impleaded as respondent.
Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that a prayer in the writ petition has been made to
(2 of 5) [CW-5797/2021]
regularize and allot the subject land to them with a further
direction to the respondents not to interfere in its use by them.
Learned counsel submitted that it is a lis in between them and
official respondents and the applicant not being a necessary or
proper party, cannot be impleaded as respondents. He, in support
of his submission, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
of India in case of Mumbai International Airport Private
Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private
Limited and Ors.: (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, it is a lis in between the petitioners and the
official respondents. This Court is not satisfied that the applicant is
either a necessary or a proper party in the litigation. Their
Lordships have held in case of Mumbai International Airport
Private Limited (supra) held as under:
"15. A 'necessary party' is a person who
ought to have been joined as a party and in whose
absence no effective decree could be passed at all
by the Court. If a 'necessary party' is not
impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
A 'proper party' is a party who, though not a
necessary party, is a person whose presence would
enable the court to completely, effectively and
adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes
in the suit, though he need not be a person in
favour of or against whom the decree is to be
made. If a person is not found to be a proper or
necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to
implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff.
The fact that a person is likely to secure a
right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is
decided against the plaintiff, will not make such
person a necessary party or a proper party to the
suit for specific performance.
27. On a careful examination of the facts of
this case, we find that the appellant is neither a
necessary party nor a proper party. As noticed
above, the appellant is neither a purchaser nor the
lessee of the suit property and has no right, title
(3 of 5) [CW-5797/2021]
or interest therein. First respondent - plaintiff in
the suit has not sought any relief against the
appellant. The presence of the appellant is not
necessary for passing an effective decree in the
suit for specific performance. Nor is its presence
necessary for complete and effective adjudication
of the matters in issue in the suit for specific
performance filed by the first respondent-plaintiff
against AAI. A person who expects to get a lease
from the defendant in a suit for specific
performance in the event of the suit being
dismissed, cannot be said to be a person having
some semblance of title, in the property in
dispute."
The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Mohd.
Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay & Ors.: 2016 SCC Online SC 1887, held as
under:
"It is a settled principle of law, which
does not need any authority to support the
principle, that the plaintiff being a dominus
litis cannot be forced to add any person as
party to his suit unless it is held keeping in
view the pleadings and the relief claimed
therein that a person sought to be added as
party is a necessary party and without his
presence neither the suit can proceed and nor
the relief can be granted. It is only then such
person can be allowed to become party, else
the suit will have to be dismissed for non-
impleadment of such necessary party. Such
does not appear to be a case here.
We do not find that the presence of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the facts of this case is
required for deciding the legality of notice
impugned in the suit on merits because the
dispute centers around the question of legality
and validity of the notice which, as mentioned
above, arises between respondent No.1, who has
issued the notice, and the person to whom it is
given, i.e., appellant.
In the suit in question, the Court is not
called upon to adjudicate the rights between
the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in
relation to the suit house. Any such dispute, if
(4 of 5) [CW-5797/2021]
arises, the same can be decided in the
separate suit, which is pending between the
parties or may be filed, if required, by the
parties against each other but such dispute
cannot be tried on the cause of action pleaded
in the present suit by the appellant where the
lis is essentially between the appellant
(plaintiff) and respondent No. 1. Merely
because the suit house is the subject matter
between all the parties is no ground to get the
dispute arising between the parties settled in
one suit regardless of the nature of cause of
action on which the suit is founded."
A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Surendra
Kumar Garg & Ors. versus the State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
RLW 2005 (1) Raj. held as under:-
"(6). So far as the ground of locus
standi is concerned, it may be mentioned that
once the complaint is made, the business of
the complainant is over. He is no more
person to make any interference as the
complaint is the subject-matter of enquiry
between the party concerned and the
Government and no-one has a right to make
an interference. The complainant is only an
informer and the business has been
completed by the appellants, while making
complaint against the respondent No. 3 and
they have no interest left in the matter to get
acquaintance with the further development of
the proceedings. Apart from that, the State
Government has always inherent jurisdiction
to revoke its earlier order in view of the
subsequent events taking place in the matter.
In this connection, reference of Bharat Kumar
v. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), and
Mahadev Prasad Yadav v. State of Rajasthan
and Ors. (2), may be made."
In the factual backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law, this
Court is not inclined to allow the application filed by the applicant-
Shri Ram Sharan Singh.
The application is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
(5 of 5) [CW-5797/2021]
MADAN/151
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
