PAWAN KUMAR Vs. KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT LPA is filed challenging order dated 30.4.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.14492 of 1998, thereby dismissing CM Nos.2523-25 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking impleadment of the applicant as party in the writ petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case are that Pushpa Rani and other allottees preferred writ petition for quashing the notice of resumption of property dated 6.3.1998 issued by the Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal. Resumption clause was invoked by the Improvement Trust for want of payment by the allottees of the amount outstanding against them within the stipulated time. Learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 11.9.1998 in favour of Pushpa Rani and others, restraining the Improvement Trust from dispossessing the petitioners from the allotted shops on the condition that the petitioners deposit the amount allegedly outstanding against them. Pushpa Rani -writ petitioner did not comply with the direction and did not deposit the amount outstanding against her. The Improvement Trust moved an application to vacate the interim direction issued vide order dated 11.9.1998. Learned Single Judge has vacated the interim order passed in favour of the allottees on 11.9.1998, vide order dated 13.12.2004. Present appellant applicant Pawan Kumar claiming himself to be the tenant of Pushpa Rani, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking his impleadment in the writ petition and he further sought direction of the Court to deposit the amount with the Improvement Trust, which was said to be outstanding against Pushpa Rani. Learned Single Judge has observed that even if Pawan Kumar -applicant is accepted to be the tenant, he cannot take place of the allottee or her L.R. and hence, has absolutely no right to act as an allottee by depositing the amount outstanding against the allottee. Learned Single Judge further held that since interim direction granted by this Court vide order dated 11.9.1998 has already been vacated on 13.12.2004, hence neither Pushpa Rani nor her tenant can claim protection.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that tenant has every right to be heard in resumption proceedings. He has relied upon the judgement of Full Bench of this Court in Brij Mohan Vs. Chief Administrator and others, 1980 PLR 621. The Full Bench in Brij Mohan's case (supra) in paragraphs 19 to 21 has observed as under: