STATE Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Shrimati Raj Laxmiji to make her a party in this case. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that she holds a decree for Rs. 2,52,604/87 np. against the jagirdar which is to be paid to her out of the compensation amount as per final award of the Jagir Commissioner. He has cited O. 41, rule 20. According to this, where it appears to the court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made a party to the appeal, is interested in the result or the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future day to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent.

(2.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contends that this appeal relates to the determination of the amount of compensation and the applicant is only a creditor holding a decree of the civil court. He has argued that a creditor cannot be made a party in a case for the determination of compensation. He has cited Bansilal versus State of Rajasthan reported in R. R. D. 1962 page 323 wherein it was held that at the time of determination of compensation the extent of the Jagir-dar's indebtedness has not to be kept in consideration and it does not affect the fixation of the amount of compensation. There is no provision in the Act which might indicate that the creditors are to be heard at the time of determination of compensation. He has also cited Vijaya Rajendra Suri versus Briji Lal reported in R. R. D. 1963 page 213 in which it was held that from an examination of the scheme of the Act it becomes clear that the Act and rules made thereunder provide only for the dues and debts of the State and not of the private persons.