Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Project Manager Jugal Kishore ... vs Shankar Singh (2024:Rj-Jd:40075) on 26 September, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:40075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 153/2018
Project Manager Jugal Kishore Khandelwal, Aged About 51 Years,
(For Boundary Wall Fencing Work), Presently At Karan Pura
Pratap Garh, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shankar Singh S/o Annaji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura
Tehsil Raipur District Pali.
2. Nanga S/o Bhimaji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
3. Pura S/o Gulabji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil Raipur
District Pali
4. Naina S/o Malaji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil Raipur
District Pali
5. Narayan S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
6. Girdhari S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
7. Ganga S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
8. Ugma S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
9. Shankar S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
10. Bhera S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
11. Lala S/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil Raipur
District Pali
12. Pratapi W/o Jeevanji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
13. Bidami W/o Rajuji, B/c Rawat, R/o Naharpura Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
14. State Government Through Collector, Pali
15. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Raipur.
16. Deputy Tehsildar And Sub Registrar, Office At Sendra
17. Patwari, Patwar Mandal Pratapgarh.
(Downloaded on 27/09/2024 at 10:30:48 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:40075] (2 of 4) [CR-153/2018]
18. Chandra Kuntjio Manager Plrc Company, Present At
Karanpura Pratapgarh Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
26/09/2024
The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant
against the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge,
Bar, District Pali in Civil Case No. 71/2016 by which the court
below rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 7
Rule 11(a)(d) read with Section 151, Section 79, Order 1 Rule 9
and Order 27 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as "CPC").
Respondents herein filed a suit for claiming the relief of
seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the
applicant with the prayer that the right to way and enjoyment of
possession in their khasras in question. The applicants preferred
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the
respondents had no locus to contest the suit by virtue of the
express bar contained in section 79 and Section 80 CPC.
Therefore, the present suit is barred by law and same may be
rejected.
The learned trial court after hearing arguments of both the
parties rejected the said application by way of impugned order
dated 28.05.2018.
[2024:RJ-JD:40075] (3 of 4) [CR-153/2018]
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court
below has committed grave error of law in rejecting the
application filed by the applicants. It is argued that the
respondents did not implead the Union of India deliberately as a
party to the suit instead they impleaded their Officer as a party.
It was further submitted that no individual officer of the
Government can file a suit or initiate a proceeding in the name or
post of the Officer. It was submitted that the respondents did not
comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC and
therefore, the present suit is clearly in violation of the principles of
law and present revision petition deserves to be allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully
gone through the material on record.
Respondent have filed a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction against the applicants with the prayer that the right to
way and enjoyment of possession in their khasras in question.
Learned trial court while dismissing the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC has specifically observed that Union of India was not
made a party to the suit. So, in my considered opinion, whether
Union of India was to be made party to the suit is a mixed
question of fact, which is to be decided at a much later stage of
the suit. Therefore, the trial court had not committed any error in
dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) read with
Section 151, 79, Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 27 Rule 1 CPC filed by
the petitioner. So, the present revision petition being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
[2024:RJ-JD:40075] (4 of 4) [CR-153/2018]
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
11-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
