ATMA RAM Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (J D )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the applicant-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 20.03.2008 (Annex.7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rawatsar rejecting his application for impleadment in a suit for injunction.

(2.) From the copy of the amended plaint (Annex.1), it appears that the plaintiff Sahi Ram (since deceased and represented by his wife and children, respondents Nos. 2/1 to 2/3 herein) has filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the State of Rajasthan, Additional Collector and Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangrh, and the Municipal Board, Rawatsar (respondents Nos. 3 to 5 herein) claiming his right over a piece of land described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint allegedly purchased by him on 16.04.1960 from the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rawatsar and having been issued patta thereof; and submitted that the notice as issued by the Secretary of Mandi Vikas Samiti for auction of the land in question was wholly unauthorised. It appears that the substituted plaintiffs have taken further pleadings by way of amendment that the State Government had issued orders for regularisation of such land and called for a list of pattas issued by the said Gram Panchayat; however, the concerned authorities did not carry out compliance and even the prayer made by the plaintiffs for such regularisation was declined in an illegal manner. The plaintiffs have further alleged that during pendency of the suit, the land in question has been vested in the Municipal Board (defendant No. 3) who is competent to regularise; and the plaintiffs have adopted proceedings for such regularisation before the defendant No. 3. The prayer in this suit is to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the land in question and be directed to regularise the same in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 3 in its written statement (Annex.2) has denied the claim of the plaintiff with the submissions, inter alia, that as on 16.04.1960, Gram Panchayat, Rawatsar had no authority to issue any such patta; and the patta referred by the plaintiffs remains void and non-est. The answering defendant has of course pointed out that the application for regularisation as made by the plaintiffs was to be considered by its Settlement Committee; and has contended that because the plaintiffs could obtain relief in the application moved before the Settlement Committee, they were not entitled for any relief from the Civil Court per Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) In this suit, by way of the application moved under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the applicant- petitioner would assert that the land sought to be claimed by the plaintiffs is that of Plot No. 233 and remains his pattasud land; and that the plaintiff was in its possession with his permission. According to the applicant, the plaintiff wanted to show this land of Plot No. 233 as that of Plot No. 234 whereas the fact remains that the land of Plot No. 234 has already gone in road. According to the applicant, the plaintiff, in connivance with the employees of the Municipality and while misleading the Court, was seeking to get the land of Plot No. 233 regularised by stating it to be the land of Plot No. 234. Hence, according to the applicant, he was a necessary and proper party in the suit.