Ramesh Chand S/O Nainu Lal vs Nainu Lal S/O Bholuram
2022 Latest Caselaw 7574 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7457/2019

Ramesh Chand S/o Nainu Lal, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste
Raigar, Resident Of Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Nainu Lal S/o Bholuram, By Caste Raigar, Resident Of
       Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2.     Dy. Registrar, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Nikhil Saini
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

01/12/2022

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India against the order dt. 18.3.2019 passed by

learned Civil Judge, Lalsot Dausa whereby the application under

Order 6 Rule 17 read with under Order 1 Rule 10 & 151 CPC filed

by the petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

had filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No.1

in which respondent No.1 filed reply of the suit and stated that he

had executed a gift deed in favour of his son on 29.9.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed

an application before the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 read

with Order 1 Rule 10 & 151 CPC to implead Suresh Chand as a

party respondent because petitioner wanted to cancel so called

(2 of 3) [CW-7457/2019]

gift deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of Suresh Chand.

Learned trial court vide order dt.18.3.2019 wrongly dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that amendment sought by the petitioner

necessary for adjudication of the suit and also submitted that if

Suresh Chand is made a party then legal implications would be

arrived. So, order of the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgment:- (1) Kasturi vs. Uyyamperumal & ors. in

Appeal (Civil) No.2831/2005 decided on 25.4.2005; (2) Amit

Kumar Shaw & anr. vs. Farida Khatoon & anr. in Civil Appeal

No.2592/2005 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17780/2004 decided on

13.4.2005; (3) Sumtibai & ors. vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar;

(4) Mahendra Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar reported in 2018(1) WLC

(Raj.)(UC) 779; (5) Moolchand vs. Addi. District Judge & ors.

2009 (4) RLW 2906; (6) Dashrath Kumar Choudhary vs.

Rameshwar Goyal & anr. 2013 AIR CC 1902; (7) Smt. Jamna

Devi vs. Aijan Devi 2018 (2) WLC 416; (8) Gurupal vs. Addl.

District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar & ors. 2011 (4) WLN 624;

(9) Madan Lal Khatik vs. Smt. Ghisi Bai and anr. 2018 (2) DNJ

578.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that order of the trial court is well reasoned. So,

petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the impugned order.

(3 of 3) [CW-7457/2019]

It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 in his written

statement clearly stated that he had executed a gift deed of

disputed property in favour of his son. Petitioner had filed the suit

for specific performance. So, in my considered opinion, petitioner

rightly sought for impleading Suresh Chand as party by way of

amendment as a respondent but trial court wrongly dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner. So, present petition deserves to

be allowed.

Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and

order of the trial court dt. 18.3.2019 is set aside.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 48.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)