JITENDRAKUMAR MANHARBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. DHANSUKHBHAI CHUNILAL PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.10.2007 whereby, the learned Court has rejected application Exh.84 preferred by present petitioner with a request for impleading three additional respondents in the suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner in 2006. One of the parties sought to be impleaded as respondent No.12 is an autonomous body of the Municipal Corporation. The other party who is sought to be impleaded as respondent No.13 is the Zonal Officer of the municipal corporation and the third party sought to be impleaded as respondent No.14 is the Executive Engineer. By the said application dated 4.8.2007 (Exh.84) the petitioner herein also prayed for permission to amend the plaint by inserting paragraphs 10(3) and 10(4) so as to add the prayer for relief against the proposed additional respondents. After hearing the applicant and opponent, the learned Court, by an order dated 8.10.2007, disallowed the application for impleading the said three parties as respondent Nos.12 to 14. The learned Court, after examining the plaint and the relief prayed for in the suit and the application Exh.84 has recorded that in view of the Court the said three parties were not relevant or necessary for effective determination of the suit.

(2.) THE petitioner has produced copy of the plaint as one of the annexures to this petition. On perusal, it is seen that the said suit is preferred against respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein for declaration and partition of HUF property. In paragraph 10(1) of the plaint, the petitioner herein has prayed for the relief in respect of the property described in the suit and for the declaration in respect of the petitioner's share from amongst the undivided share. One of the prayers made in the suit is in the nature of injunction against the respondents to the effect that the said respondents may not demolish or remove the construction and/or may not transfer or assign the property to anyone and/or may not make any addition or alteration by way of additional construction or by bringing down the building. After having filed the said plaint for such purpose in November, 2006, the applicant herein moved an application in August 2007 with a request that the aforesaid three parties may be impleaded as respondent Nos.12 to 14 in the suit proceedings. The reason cited in support of the request, as transpires from the said application, is that the petitioner apprehends that the corporation was in process of passing / approving the plans for additional construction without consent of the petitioner and without petitioner's knowledge and that the petitioner has already given an application requesting the corporation not to approve such plans. After considering the said application and the submissions of the parties, the learned Court has recorded in the order that in view of the subject matter of suit being RCS No.464 of 2006, the corporation cannot be said to be necessary party or a proper party for effective determination of the suit and that therefore, there was no justification for impleading the said parties as respondents in the proceedings, which are essentially for declaration and partition of HUF property.

(3.) SO far as challenge against the order passed on application dated 23.11.2007 (Exh.113) is concerned, Mr. Joshi on behalf of the petitioner submits that he does not press the said issue at this stage. Since the petitioner is, at this stage, not challenging the order in respect of Exh.113, this Court has not entered into and/or not examined the said issue on merits.