RUMANI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Agrawal for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Trial Judge committed a grave error in allowing the application filed u/o. 1, R. 10 CPC by the present respondents No. 2 to 7 to be impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. He submitted that the present respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties, therefore, they should not have been joined as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner which was mainly against the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal vs. U. I. T. Alwar & Ors. (1) and an unreported judgment dated 8. 4. 91 delivered in Gora Devi & Ors. vs. U. I. T. & Ors.

(2.) IN the later case, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. K. C. Agrawal, C. J.) (as he then was) allowed the revision petition filed under Section 115 C. P. C. and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by which the application to implead person as a defendant in the suit was granted. From the judgment of that case, it appears that certain land acquisition proceedings were started under the Land Acquisition Act for which the notification was issued on 3. 4. 80 followed by notification of declaration dated 19. 3. 81. The validity of these notifications were challenged before the High Court and the same was upheld on 6. 5. 83 and the Collector was directed to take proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act which was earlier dispensed with. During the pendency of that proceedings, the notification under Section 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was issued which was equivalent to Section 4 of the Act. Later on the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was initiated which was equivalent to Section 6 of the Act. Meanwhile, the petitioners of that case filed a suit for injunction in the year 1984 and the notifications under Sections 51 and 52 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of that suit, one Jagram moved an application for impleading him as party defendant to the suit. The same was allowed by the Trial Judge on 14. 2. 90 which was under challenged before the High Court on the ground that Jagram was neither a necessary nor proper party, therefore, his application should have been rejected by the Trial Court.

(3.) THE present respondents No. 2 to 7 who are the neighbours of the petitioner made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. before the Trial Court in a suit filed by the present petitioner against the respondent Corporation for impleading them as party-defendants on the ground that they are going to be vitally affected and they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. THE said application filed by them was granted by the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 30. 9. 99. This order has been challenged in this revision petition.