LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-256

RAM AWADH YADAV Vs. JHARKHANDEY BIND

Decided On January 28, 2015
RAM AWADH YADAV Appellant
V/S
Jharkhandey Bind Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings, with an allegation that the plaintiff has instituted a previous suit, in respect of the same subject matter, wherein a mandamus directing maintenance of status-quo had been granted, but concealing such fact, a subsequent suit was instituted, wherein an order has been passed on 18.9.2014, permitting the removal of bricks. The petitioner contends that the bricks in question belong to him, as the site was given on rent in his favour. The petitioner also moved an application for recall of the order dated 18.9.2014 and the trial court has recalled the said order vide its order dated 31.10.2014. A revision against it has been filed, which has been allowed by the revisional court with the observation that the application for impleadment moved under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. had yet not been allowed, and therefore, the application for recall of injunction order at the instance of third party could not have been allowed. Thus, aggrieved by it, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 18.9.2014 was collusively obtained, which adversely affected the interest of the applicant-petitioner, and therefore, the order recalling the order dated 18.9.2014 requires no interference. It has further been stated that the order dated 18.9.2014 had also been allowed at the instance of the petitioner on 26.9.2014, against which a revision was filed, which was allowed on 20.10.2014 and the matter was remitted back for a fresh consideration and the parties during such period were directed to maintain status-quo. It is contended that by the order impugned, though the matter has been remitted back for afresh consideration but no protection has been granted, as a result the entire bricks in question would be removed by the respondents, which would frustrate the very object of filing of the application by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that so long as the application for impleadment is not allowed, no order at his instance can be passed. It is further stated that the claim of petitioner is wholly false and he has no locus in the matter to intervene.