RAFIULLAH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 26-3-1990 passed by the opposite party No. 1, District Judge, Faizabad, contained in Annexure 17 by which the District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 19-2-1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Faizabad.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, impleading the State of U. P., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faizabad, the Naib Tahsildar, Tanda, Faizabad and the Town Area Committee Iltifatganj Bazar, Pergana and Tahsil Tanda, District Faizabad, praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any way or demolishing the construction of the plaintiff existing over the land in suit. According to the plaint allegations the case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff is the owner of the plots in dispute. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the Chairman of the Town Area Committee Iltifatganj Bazar and according to the plaintiff some of the opponents of the plaintiff moved an application before the Collector, Faizabad, stating that the plaintiff is raising construction over a land which has been left for Holika Dahan in the village. The plaintiff further stated that the place of Holika Dahan has already been allotted by the Town Area Committee and the land in dispute has not been left for purposes of Holika Dahan nor any Holika Dahan has been done on this land. While praying for exemption of notice under Sec. 80 C.P.C. the plaintiff further stated that opposite parties 2 and 3 had threatened the plaintiff to demolish the construction and allot the land in suit for Holika Dahan. It is not disputed that an interim injunction has already been granted in favour of the plaintiff. Opposite parties 6 to 13 of the present writ petition moved an application before the Civil Judge under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment as defendants 6 to 13 on the ground that from the time of ancestors this Holika Dahan had been done on the plot in dispute and the plaintiff has no right or title over the land in dispute. It was further alleged by opposite parties 5 to 8 that the plaintiff was Pradhan of this village and at present Chairman of the Town Area Committee Iltifatganj Bazar, therefore, in order to grab the land in dispute he filed the present suit impleading Government officers only as opposite parties. Opposite parties 6 to 13 further stated that they are necessary and proper parties and, therefore, they may be impleaded as defendants.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge by order dated 19.2.1990 rejected the application holding that the plaintiff cannot be directed to add opposite parties 6 to 13 as defendants. Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties 6 to 13 as defendants. Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties 6 to 13 filed Revision No. 17 of 1990 which was allowed by the District Judge, Faizabad, on 26-3-1990. The District Judge, Faizabad, allowed the revision holding that opposite parties 6' to 13 are proper and necessary parties for the proper and final adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.