BHONRE LAL Vs. VIDHYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 20th August, 2008 (Annexure-3) passed by the civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial magistrate, Mundawar, District Alwar, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party-defendant has been rejected.

(2.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Matadeen was recorded tenant of agriculture land bearing khasra no. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 measuring total rakba 13 bigha and 7 biswa. He executed a 'will' and after his death the mutation was opened in the name of respondent no. 2 Smt. Munno Devi and from her, the applicantpetitioner purchased 7/26th share and at present he is recorded tenant of the said purchased land and he is in possession thereof. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 Smt. Vidhya Devi filed a suit against the applicant-petitioner bhonre Lal for declaration, correction of entry and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the court of SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Similarly the applicantpetitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against Rajendra and Bhoop Singh, both sons of Rameshwar, which was decreed by the court of SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Both the suits were in respect of land-in-dispute, for which the present suit has been preferred by respondent no. 1 Smt. Vidhya Devi for cancellation of 'will' executed by Matadeen in favour of the respondent no. 2 smt. Munno Devi. Therefore, he is directly interested and affected party and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting his application to implead him as a party.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order contending that looking to the nature of suit i. e. suit for cancellation of 'will', the present applicant is not at all a necessary party and trial court rightly rejected their application. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this writ petition, the applicant-petitioner Bhonre Lal died and in his place, his legal representatives have been substituted.