VIMAL KUMAR Vs. BISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -applicant, challenging the order dt. 20/12/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 74 of 2012 (22 of 2010), whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleading him as the party defendant in the suit. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Girish Khandelwal, for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 -Punya Ram, who happened to be the father of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, had executed an agreement to sell on 8.7.2006 in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said agreement, the petitioner had developed the land in question, and executed further agreements in favour of the third party, in whose favour the Nagar Palika had issued the patta also. According to him, the petitioner having interest in the property in question, he should have been impleaded as the party -defendant in the suit.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. Bipin Gupta and Mr. Dharmendra Jain appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -plaintiffs has supported the impugned order passed by the Trial Court by submitting that the petitioner being neither necessary nor proper party, the Trial Court has lightly rejected the application of the petitioner. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 -the defendants seeking declaration to the effect that the property in question was the ancestral property, and that each of them had 1/4 share in the same. In the said suit, the petitioner had made an application for impleading him as party -defendant on the basis of the agreement allegedly executed by the respondent No. 3 -Shri Punya on 8.7.2006 in favour of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court, such agreement to sell even if is believed to have been executed by the respondent No. 3 (now deceased) in favour of the petitioner, such agreement would not create any right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the petitioner being neither necessary nor proper party in the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.