Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurdeep Singh vs Karni Singh on 11 January, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 286/2022
Gurdeep Singh S/o Shri Jeet Singh, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Jat
Sikh, R/o Chak 1V Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar
Being Special Power Of Attorney Holder Of (1) Karnel Singh S/o
Harbhajan Singh (2) Sukhvinder Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh ,
(3) Smt. Surendra Kaur D/o Hajbhajan Singh (4) Smt. Jasvinder
Kaur D/o Harbhajan Singh R/o 14O Tehsil Sri Karanpur District
Sri Ganganagar At Present R/o 4308 Grafton Cir. Mather, CA
95655 USA.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Karni Singh S/o Ajayab Singh, B/c Tarkhan, R/o Chak 40F
Tehsil Sri Karanpur Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
2. Harpal Singh S/o Gurbansh Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o 14O,
Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binja Ram Jat for Mr. Rakesh
Matoria through V.C.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
11/01/2022
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 05.03.2020, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), whereby the
petitioner's application dated 05.07.2019 filed under Order 1 Rule
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.
2. The facts germane for the present purposes are that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 instituted a suit for specific performance
in the year 2010, for performance of the agreement said to have
been executed by the defendant (the respondent No.2 herein).
3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an
application, inter-alia, asserting that he is having a power of
(2 of 2) [CW-286/2022]
attorney in his favour issued by the defendants and, thus, he is de
facto owner of the land in question and is required to be
heard/impleaded in the suit.
4. The application filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of
by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2020, inter-alia,
observing that in the suit for specific performance, the applicant -
a power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 to 4 is not a
necessary party.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
having a power of attorney in his favour granted by the
respondent No.1 to 4 is necessary party in the suit as his rights
are going to be adversely affected, in case the suit is decreed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the
order dated 05.03.2020, passed by the learned trial Court.
7. Concededly, the petitioner is claiming his right of
impleadment on the basis of a power of attorney. He is not a
subsequent purchaser by way of registered sale deed. Hence, in
light of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of
Rajendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12331/2016, the petitioner does not have the right of
impleadment.
8. The writ petition therefore fails.
9. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
44-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
