SHIMBHU LAWANIYA Vs. BHARAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dt. 27.11.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 01/09, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner -defendant No. 2 for impleading the Waqf Board as the party -defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal for the petitioner that the petitioner is paying rent to the Waqf Board, and therefore, the Waqf Board is a necessary party in the suit. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner and other defendants for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff. From the bare perusal of the copy of plaint annexed to the petition, it appears that in the earlier litigation filed by one Sushila Devi, predecessor -in title of the plaintiff, the suit property was not proved to be a Waqf property as per the decree dt. 28.02.1963 passed in Civil Suit No. 164/61. Merely because the petitioner -defendant has contended that the petitioner is paying rent to the Waqf Board, it cannot be said that the Waqf Board is a necessary party in the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the plaintiff having not prayed any relief against the Waqf Board, and the Waqf Board being not found to be a necessary party, it is not required to be impleaded as a party -defendant in the suit. There being no any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.