SAMPATI DEVI Vs. ADJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 13.01.2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 348/10, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 for impleading the three persons named Smt. Chanda Mahatma, Bajrang Hanuman Mahatma and the manager of the Pahadganj Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti as the parties -defendants in the suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioner -plaintiff that in the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking permanent injunction for restraining them not to take any action against the petitioner -plaintiff without following the due process of law in respect of the plot in question, the parties proposed by the respondent No. 2 could not be said to be either proper parties or the necessary parties. He also submitted that though one of the persons named Bajrang Hanuman had already expired, the respondent had filed application for impleading him as the party -defendant in the suit and the trial Court without applying its mind has allowed the said application of the respondent No. 2.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the suit has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff against the respondent No. 2 and 3 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plot in question for restraining them from taking any action against the petitioner without following the due process of law. In the said suit, the respondent No. 2 had filed the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the three persons as the parties -defendants in the suit, on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had advanced the loan to Smt. Chanda Mahatma and Bajrang Hanuman, who were at the relevant time found to be in the possession of the plot in question, on the basis of the Patta issued by the Pahadganj Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti. The trial Court has observed that the proposed defendants who were allegedly in possession of the plot in question at the time when the loan was given to them by the respondent No. 2, and in respect of which the petitioner -plaintiff is claiming the possession, would be necessary parties for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. The Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which even otherwise is discretionary in nature. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed, however it is clarified that if the proposed defendant Bajrang Hanuman has already expired as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court/respondent No. 2 shall do the needful in that regard. In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.