RAMSWAROOP YADAV Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and aside the order dated 29th March, 2012, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that one respondent-plaintiff no.2 Kailash Kumawat filed a suit for permanent injunction and partition in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be transferred to the Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It is further revealed that the petitioner Ramswaroop Yadav purchased a piece of land out of Hindu Undivided Family Property bearing khasra No. 715/3/2/2 from the respondent no.3 Shankar lal. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC imploring to implead him as a necessary party in the suit. It was averred by the petitioner that the respondent defendant no.3 Shankar lal, despite being given ample opportunity to file the written statement of defence, did not file the same and resultantly the court closed the right to file the written statement of defence and proceeded ex-parte against him. It is also noticed that during the pendency of this suit, the petitioner filed a separate suit independently for specific performance of contract in the court. The petitioner Ramswaroop Yadav has come with a case that he is a necessary party in the suit filed by Kailash Kumawat and thus, he is required to be impleaded as a party defendant for the just decision of the case. The learned trial court is found to have dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner-applicant had already filed a separate suit for specific performance of contract, which was pending in the court and whatever the relief he wanted to seek in the instant suit, could seek in his own suit with regard to the property in question.

(3.) CONSEQUENT upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.