YOGESWARSHARAN CHELA SRI GARVELISHARAN JI Vs. ANANT SHRI VIBHUSHIT JAGADGURU NIMBAKARYACHARYA AND 7 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party first set.

(2.) This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Mathura, whereby the impleadment application filed on behalf of the revisionist, being paper no.236-ka, in Original Suit No.372 of 2009, has been rejected.

(3.) It appears that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party first set against the second set of opposite party, being Suit No.372 of 2009 (suit of 2009) seeking a relief of declaration that the plaintiff no.1 is Mahant Peethadhish and mutawalli of plaintiff nos.2 and 3 and to affirm his right over the property stated at the foot of the plaint as well as the property which is the subject matter of a case under Sections 145 / 146 Cr.P.C. Further relief of permanent injunction was sought against the opposite party second set from forcibly evicting or taking possession or making constructions over the property in dispute. In the aforesaid suit of 2009, an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the revisionist claiming himself to be the beneficiary of a will dated 06.06.2000 executed by one Shri Garvelisharan. It was stated in the application that Garvelisharan himself was named as beneficiary by one Sanat Kumar Das Ji, who had established the aforesaid temple i.e. plaintiff nos.2 and 3. It was stated that the applicant-revisionist was declared as the successor of Garvelisharan and he was made a mutawalli on 21.08.2000. It was further stated in the application that the applicant has instituted a suit against the plaintiff-opposite party first set being Suit No.327 of 2016 (suit of 2016) (Yogeshwar Sharan and Anr. vs. Anant Shri Vibhushit Jagadguru Nimbarkacharya Shri Mukunddevacharya Peeth Seva Samiti Charitable Trust and Anr.). It was stated that the actual possession at the site was that of the applicant-revisionist alone. It was stated that the applicant-revisionist has purposely not been made a party to the proceedings and, therefore, the claim was set up for impleading him as a necessary party.