RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision filed under section 115 f Civil procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 18. 3. 2008 passed by the civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura on an application under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. in Original Suit No. 834 of 2005 Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Nagar palika Parishad, Mathura.

(2.) ONE Sri Ravi Krishna Agarwal filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. for being made a party in the suit. He stated that the Nagar palika Parishad had settled an auction in his favour on 15. 12. 2005 regarding lease of the roof of the shop in question and possession of the same was given to, him on 9. 1. 2006 on his payment of the entire auctioned amount. He also stated that pursuant to the said auction and possession he has made his construction on the roof of the shop in question and the status-quo order dated 19. 1. 2006 obtained by the plaintiff from the High Court was never served upon him. For the first time he came to know about the status-quo order of the High Court when contempt notice was received by him on 2. 8. 2006. According to him, there was no order of status-quo or restraint on the date when the roof of the shop was auctioned and possession was given to him. According to him, his interest is involved in the present suit because the plaintiff has brought the suit against nagar Palika Parishad for a permanent injunction against holding of auction for granting lease of the roof of the shop in question.

(3.) THE Trial Court after considering the application under Order I, Rule 10, c. P. C. and objections filed thereto found that the suit was presented on 14. 12. 2005 and the Trial Court had not granted any ex-parte injunction order to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 15. of 2006 and an order dated 19. 1. 2006 was issued by the Revisional Court to maintain status quo as of that date relating to the property in suit. The Trial Court found that the nagar Palika Parishad had already settled the auction dated 15. 12. 2005 in favour of Ravi Krishna Agarwal and had made allotment in his favour by giving him possession on 9. 1. 2006 after the auctioned amount was deposited by the auction purchaser. The Trial Court recorded that there was no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to show that he had any right over the roof of shop nor a right to be allotted the same. The Trial Court relied upon a decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, 1999 36 ALR 93 that when a third party is found to be a bona fide purchaser for value during the pendency of a suit his application under Order I, Rule 10, c. P. C. requires to be allowed since he was a necessary party. The Trial Court also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of smt. Saroj Goel v. Munshi Lal and others, 2003 51 ALR 367 to state that in a suit for permanent injunction the transferee of the defendant is a necessary party and entitled to be to be impleaded as such. The Trial Court also refer to a decision in the case of smt. Shail Kumari v. Smt. Asha Srivastava, 2004 57 ALR 830 and in the case of Amit Kumar Shah v. Farida Khatoon and others, 2005 59 ALR (SC) 584 and recorded that bona fide purchaser whose interest in the property is shown is a necessary party. The Trial Court also considered a decision in the case of b. B. Jubeda and others v. Nabi Hussain, AIR 2004 SC 173 and recorded the fact and the circumstance of that case are distinguishable from those of the present case since the aforesaid decisions related to a property under mortgage in a suit for specific performance whereas the present suit related to permanent injunction. The Trial Court therefore allowed the application of sri Ravi Krishna Agarwal and directed him to be made a necessary party in the suit.