M/S. BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORKS Vs. RAJESH DAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.179-A/2007, thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents No.3 to 8 before the Court below interalia pleading that the suit property Junagarh House was jointly purchased by the grandfather and the respondent/defendant No.3 in the year 1955 and there was no partition affected of the suit property. The respondent/defendant No.3 without partitioning the suit property was trying to transfer the same in favour of the respondent/defendant No.4, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and 2 has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner is in exclusive possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No.86/1/2 consisting of 2.11 acres, which was decreed in favour of the defendants No.7 and 8 vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 and thereafter, it was mutated in their name on 01.12.2005. The respondents No.7 and 8 sold their part of the suit property to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed on 13.07.2010 and on the basis thereof, the petitioner got property mutated in their name. The said registered sale-deed was never challenged in any court of law. The petitioner came to know about pendency of the present suit on 06.10.2012 and therefore, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with relevant documents praying to implead him as party to the suit. However, the trial Court has rejected the said application preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2012. Against which the petitioner preferred to file Writ Petition No.20734/2012. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2015. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs impleaded the petitioner as one of the defendant in the civil suit and thereafter the petitioner has filed his written statement on 02.07.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Commissioner as well as the petitioner has filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of the Commissioner as well as the petitioner has filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing certain documents on record on 21.11.2017. The trial Court without considering the grounds of the application has rejected the same vide order dated 30.11.2017. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argues that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that the petitioner was impleaded as party in the year 2015, only after, the writ petition was allowed by this Court. The written statement was filed in the year 2016 and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for bringing certified copies of the documents on record. Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner has filed this application belatedly is not correct. It is submitted that although the petitioner has knowledge about pendency of the civil suit in the year 2012, however, his application for impleadment was rejected by the trial Court, therefore, the findings of the trial Court is erroneous, which deserves to be dismissed.