BAGICHI GULABDAS JI Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner - Nagar Parishad, Sikar through its Commissioner challenging the impugned order dtd. 15/1/2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Sikar, in Civil Suit No.777/2014, titled as Bagichi Gulabdasji Vs. Ratanlal and Others, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 instituted a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents No.2 to 11, herein (Annexure-1). The petitioner - Nagar Parishad, Sikar filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleading it as defendant No.11 in the suit on 2/12/2020 (Annexure-3), which was rejected vide impugned order dtd. 15/1/2021 (Annexure-5) by the learned trial Court. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Nagar Parishad, Sikar has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in Para Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint has nowhere disclosed the title over the land, in question and mere possession over the land will not create any legal right or title over the land. The entire land consisting Khasra No.401 in Rakba 1813 vests in the State Government, as per Jamabandi of Samvat, 1998. Counsel has contended that the petitioner in Para 2 of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. gave details of the land, which vests in the Government, after the Municipal Council came into existence, thus, the entire land vests in the Municipal Council, Sikar. Counsel has further contended that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has no legal right or title over the entire land and his possession over the land is only as an 'encroacher'. Counsel has argued that the necessary party ought to be joined to the suit and in whose absence, no effective decree can be passed by the Court. Counsel has further argued that in the present case, the petitioner- Nagar Parishad is a necessary party, as the entire land vests in the Nagar Parishad and the plaintiff is a trespasser/ encroacher, as no legal right or title over the land has been disclosed in the plaint. Counsel has pleaded that mere delay in filing the application for impleading it as a party is no ground to dismiss the application, as in view of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, if application is filed or even suo-motu, can implead the party without any application. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.