Rajasthan High Court
Janki Sharan Agarwal S/O Late Shri ... vs Mohan Das Swami S/O Late Shri ... on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16359/2018
Janki Sharan Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ramsharan Agarwal, Aged
About 71 Years, By Caste Mahajan (Agarwal), R/o Plot No. 15,
Shri Vihar Colony, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)-18.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Das Swami S/o Late Shri Gopidas Swami, Aged
About 64 Years, By Caste Swami, R/o Village
Mathurawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
2. Baba R.n. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited,
Through President Shri Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Shri V.p.
Singh, Address - Plot No. 4/59, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary,
Address - Pandit Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Opposite Birla
Mandir, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
4. Smt. Nibha Bishwas, Honorary Secretary, Dena Bank
Employees Thrift And Credit Cooperative Society Limited,
Jaipur. At Present Residing At C-177, Sector-3, Chitrakoot
Scheme, Jaipur.
5. Dena Bank Employees Union, Rajasthan, Through General
Secretary Lokesh Mishra R/o 110, Bhartendu Nagar,
Khatipura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. Lodha Senior Counsel with Mr.
Rachit Sharma, Mr. Narendra Kumar
Gauttam, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
12/01/2023
1. The present petition is filed against the order dated
24/04/2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge
No.19, Headquarter Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.
(2 of 5) [CW-16359/2018]
5/2013. It is submitted by the petitioner that impleadment
application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC of respondent Nos. 4 & 5
was allowed, despite the same being devoid of merit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a suit
for specific performance of contract for sale is a matter exclusively
between the vendor and the purchaser and except these parties,
no other party has any right or interest in the litigation of specific
performance. Respondent No. 4 & 5, therefore, are not necessary
parties required to be impleaded. Learned counsel contends that
the respondent No. 2, being the main contesting party, is more
than enough to defend the suit in favour of respondent Nos 4 & 5.
Learned counsel contends that such impleadment will only need to
delay in conclusion of the proceedings pending before the court
below and therefore the impugned order ought to be set aside and
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 should not be permitted to participate in
the proceedings ongoing in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his claim,
has placed reliance upon judgments of Kasturi vs.
Iyyamperumal & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733,
Chandrakala vs. Ram Singh reported in 2021(2) CivCC 155 and
Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. reported
in 2019 AIR SC 3577.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the order impugned dated 24/04/2018 is fair
adjudication and impleadment of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 was
rightly allowed because the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are interested
and necessary parties and their vested right in the disputed
property are surely going to be affected in the case pending in the
court below. He has further submitted that the learned court
(3 of 5) [CW-16359/2018]
below has passed a balanced order on merits after considering
each and every aspect and no prejudice will be caused to the
petitioner if respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are impleaded as parties. On
delay, learned counsel submits that respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have
been impleaded at the current stage and they have not been given
any right of defence. He has further submitted that registered
document first appeared in 1996 but the suit was only filed in the
year 2013, i.e. after 17 years. He has further submitted that
interim order which was passed on 04/12/2012 was also
appropriately passed after considering each and every detail in a
speaking manner.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned
the records of the writ petition and considering the judgments
cited at bar.
6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with
a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle
of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself
into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the
supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate
tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they
obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under
Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to
keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect
can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam
vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327.
(4 of 5) [CW-16359/2018]
7. In the present case, it is observed that the agreement
between the impleaded parties and respondent No. 2 was entered
in the year 1996 by way of registered sale deed, whereas the suit
in question was filed after 17 years. The same is likely to affect
the property where respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have vested rights. The
impledment on account of that fact is not just justified, but is
necessary for balance of convenience. Learned court below has
allowed the impleadment at the stage where the suit is existing
and has not given any right of defence or response as the same is
taken care of by respondent No. 2.
8. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
have no application in the instant case as the relief sought by the
petitioner will affect the vested right of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in
the disputed property and no effective decree can be passed in the
absence of such party.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has
passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of
material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in
complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court
below. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no
palpable error has crept in the order of the learned Trial Court.
The order impugned does not cause any serious prejudice to the
petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of
Constitution of India.
10. The conduct of the petitioner in filing the suit at a belated
stage and further by unnecessarily assailing well reasoned
speaking order gives the inference that the same was only done
for ulterior purposes and therefore inspire this court to impose the
cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner, which shall be deposited
(5 of 5) [CW-16359/2018]
within a period of one month in the court below and the same
shall be disbursed equally amongst the respondents.
11. In these terms, the writ petition is dismissed with the cost of
Rs. 10,000/-. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
12. Learned court below is directed to carry out the proceedings
expeditiously.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /172
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
