Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Manju Kanwar vs Jodhpur Development Authority ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14466/2024
Smt. Manju Kanwar W/o Shri Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Plot No. 6 Shikshak Vihar, Khasara No. 39, Nandari,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Its
Commissioner.
2. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Shri Narayan Prakash, R/o Plot No.
24, Khasara No. 39, Nandari, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Charan
For Respondent(s) -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
15/10/2024
By way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may
kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or
directions:-
i. The order dated 03.01.2024 as modified by the
order dated 21.03.2024 (Annex.8) may kindly be
quashed and set aside and the application of the
petitioner/applicant under order 1 rule 10 CPC may kindly
be allowed in original suit no.84/2022 in the case titled
Durga Devi V/s J.D.A. and the petitioner/applicant may
kindly be directed to be inducted as party defendant in
the above suit as being necessary and proper party for
judicious disposal of the above suit.
ii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem
just and proper is passed in favour of petitioner."
[2024:RJ-JD:42001] (2 of 4) [CW-14466/2024]
2. Concise facts of the present case are that the respondent
No.2- Smt. Durga Devi has filed a Civil Original Suit No.84/2022
alongwith an application for interim relief praying inter alia that
the authorities of Jodhpur Development Authority may be
restrained from interfering with her peaceful possession over the
land in question i.e. Plot No.24, Khasra No.39, Nandari, Jodhpur.
In the civil suit it is stated that the plaintiff had purchased the
land in question from Smt. Sudha Kothari W/o Shri Champa Lal
Kothari through registered sale deed on 23.12.1995 and thereafter
constructed a residential house thereupon. However, defendant-
J.D.A. is interfering with her peaceful possession and vide order
dated 15.07.2020 has directed her to close/remove the gate
constructed by her over the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner who is plaintiff's neighbour filed an application for her
impleadment as party defendant in the suit. In the application it
was stated that illegal construction raised by the plaintiff is
causing inconvenience to her and, further, the construction over
the disputed land has been raised in violation to the approved
building plan. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 03.01.2024
has failed to appreciate that though no relief is claimed by the
plaintiff in the civil suit against the present petitioner but she
would be a necessary and proper party to come on record and to
establish before the Court that plaintiff- Respondent No.2 has
raised illegal construction over the disputed land. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
[2024:RJ-JD:42001] (3 of 4) [CW-14466/2024]
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "N. Anantha
Reddy v. Anshu Khaturia & Ors.";(2013)15 SCC 534.
4. Heard.
5. Indisputably, no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in the
civil suit against the present petitioner. The civil suit has been filed
claiming relief against the concerned authority of Jodhpur
Development Authority which has passed certain orders for
removal of the certain part of the construction raised by the
plaintiff over the disputed land. In the opinion of this Court, since
the civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the
inaction of the Jodhpur Development Authority, the same can be
well defended by the said authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional
Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar" reported in 1963 AIR 786, has
indicated as to who shall be the proper party and who would be
the necessary party. In "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia", the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"7. To answer the question raised it would be
convenient at the outset to ascertain who are
necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law
on the subject is well settled : it is enough if we state
the principle. A necessary party is one without whom
no order can be made effectively; a proper party is
one in whose absence an effective order can be made
but whose presence is necessary for a complete and
final decision on the question involved in the
proceeding."
6. In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of the present
petitioner, the civil suit pending before the competent civil court
can be effectively and completely decided by the learned Civil
Court. The rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under
[2024:RJ-JD:42001] (4 of 4) [CW-14466/2024]
Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the learned
trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2024 will not cause any
impediment in complete and effective adjudication of the civil suit.
Thus, the petitioner is neither necessary nor the proper party to
the litigation.
7. In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
52-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
