Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Singh vs Dalpat Singh @ Dilip Singh And Ors on 25 February, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CW-12390/2016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12390/2016
Ratan Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh Ji Rajawat, R/o- H.no.46,
Ajadnagar, Sajjangarh Road, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dalpat Singh Alias Dilip Singh S/o Shri Jorawar Singh,
R/o- Kalla-Kheri, Tehsil- Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand
Rajasthan
2. Mohan Singh S/o Shri Jorawar Singh, R/o- Kalla-Kheri,
Tehsil- Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand Rajasthan
3. The Addl. District Judge, Rajsamand Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SP Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia Sr. Advocate a/
Mr. Yash Parihar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
25/02/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:-
"By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the
thereof, the impugned order dated 20.05.2016
(Annexure-6) passed by learned trial court (learned
Addl. District Judge, Rajsamand), in pending Civil suit
No.78/2014, Titled 'Ratan Singh Vs. Dalpat Singh, may
kindly be quashed and set aside, consequently the
application filed by the respondent-applicant under
(Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 08:38:25 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-12390/2016]
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may kindly be ordered to be
rejected with cost."
Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a
limited prayer that the suit preferred by the petitioner is for
specific performance, and thus, he being a master of the suit, he
has a right to choose as to whom he has to contest the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurmit Singh
Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. reported in AIR 2019
SC 3577, relevant portion reads as under:-
"6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel
(supra) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the
case of Shri Swastik Developers (supra), relied upon by
the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is
concerned, the aforesaid decisions shall not be applicable
to the facts of the case on hand as in both the aforesaid
cases, it was the plaintiff who submitted an application to
implead the third parties/subsequent purchasers who
claimed title under the vendor of the plaintiff. Position
will be different when the plaintiff submits an application
to implead the subsequent purchaser as a party and
when the plaintiff opposes such an application for
impleadment. This is the distinguishing feature in the
aforesaid two decisions and in the decision of this Court
in the case of Kasturi(supra).
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court. No interference of this Court is called for. The
appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit
for specific performance of the contract between the
original plaintiffs and original defendant no.1 against the
wish of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the present appeals
(Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 08:38:25 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-12390/2016]
stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. "
Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Yash Parihar appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that
the petitioner's right will be affected by the litigation in question,
as if there is a collusion between the parties. It will be the
respondent No.2 whose right will be affected, as he is the owner
by registered sale deed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage categorically
undertakes that the right agitated by him, he shall not seek the
same to have any impact upon the rights of the respondent No.2.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed while quashing
and setting aside, the application filed by the respondent-
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is rejected.
It is needless to say that in accordance with the undertaking
given by learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the
petitioner as well as law prevailing, the decree passed in this suit
shall not determine or impact any rights of respondent No.2.
The learned trial Court is directed to complete the trial
expeditiously.
All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
62-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
