OMPRAKASH Vs. RAMSWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on an application for impleadment at the instance of one Kuber Singh Sisodia.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that the petitioner has laid a challenge to the judgment dtd. 18/7/2016 rendered by the Board of Revenue in terms of which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) stands decreed. It has been submitted that initially the plaintiff's suit was filed on 3/9/2005 and decreed by the SDO on 20/6/2012. On appeal the RAA vide order dtd. 10/5/2013 remanded the matter back to the SDO. Aggrieved there against the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. By its impugned order dtd. 18/7/2016 it set aside the order of RAA passed on 10/5/2013 and sustained the judgment and decree of the SDO passed on 20/6/2012. Counsel for the applicant submitted that following the decree dtd. 20/6/2012 the applicant had purchased the share amongst others of the plaintiff under sale deed dtd. 10/7/2012 and thereafter on an application for mutation his name was recorded as the Khatedar qua the land originally with the plaintiff Ramswaroop. That order of mutation in favour of the applicant in the land record regarding the land in issue in the petition is under challenge in appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the facts obtaining the applicant has a definite interest in the outcome of the petition relate inter alia as it does to land in his Khatedari and possession. In the event the decree dtd. 20/6/2012 passed by the SDO and upheld by the Board of Revenue under its judgment dtd. 18/7/2016 which is in challenge in this petition were to be set aside it would be determinative of the applicant's value rights. Hence the applicant be impleaded as respondent in this petition. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Versus Nanak Builders And Investors Private Limited and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397.