DAYALJI RATNABHAI CHOTALIYA Vs. MAHESH VASANTLAL PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the ld. 3rd Add. Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar. By the said order, petitioners application below Exh.50, seeking to join the respondent no.4 herein as a party defendant has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts are as under : 2. 1. A piece of agricultural land was purchased by the father of the petitioner from one Mohan Pandya. This was so purchased on 15.02.1957, through a registered sale deed. The petitioners since then was in possession of the land. 2. 2. At the instance of respondent no.4, herein Lakha Meram, in the year 2006, the Mamlatdar registered a dispute case with regard to the revenue entry which was in the favour of the petitioner. The entry no. 696 which was recorded subsequently in favour of respondent no.4, at the petitioners behest was canceled. On 12.08.2011, the respondent no. 1 made an application to the revenue authority for correction of the revenue records and mutated his name in the land which was otherwise of the petitioners. On the basis of these disputes respondent no.1 threatened the petitioner to dispose of the land in his name. In these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a Regular Civil Suit No. 395 of 2011 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents no. 1 and 3 namely one Mr. Mahesh Vasantlal Pandya and the Mamlatdar, claiming right, title and interest on the subject land and also praying to protect the possession of the petitioner.

(3.) Suspecting that Lakha Mehram i.e respondent no. 4, who had earlier tried to get revenue entry made in his favour with regard to the land in question, the petitioner made an application at Exh.50, seeking the impleadment of Lakha Mehram as defendant no.4 in the Trial Court. An application was made seeking impleadment of defendant no.4. By the order impugned in the petition, even the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that nothing has been produced on record to show that the intended defendant no.4, had at some stage opposed the Mamlatdar Jodiya on the ground of limitation to the application was rejected. None of the contested parties appeared and even the then, the ld. Trial Judge rejected the application.