Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48653 of 2008 Petitioner :- Kabrastan Management Committee And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salamuddin Khan,Bakhteyar Yusuf,Manu Bardan,S.A.Gilani,S.K. Lal,Syed Ahmed Faizan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Krishna Mohan,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Vishnu Gupta
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners by the instant writ petition are assailing the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Revisional court/Special Judge (E.C. Act)/A.D.J. Allahabad, in Revision No. 590 of 2006, instituted by the petitioners arising from the order of the trial court dated 6.4.2005, allowing the impleadment application of sixth respondent under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.
The admitted fact, inter se, parties is that petitioner instituted a suit being Suit No.637 of 2004 (Kabrastan Management Committee and another Vs. State of U.P. & others). During the pendency of the suit, while considering the application for interim injunction, an application (39Ga) was filed by the sixth respondent, through power of attorney-holder, contending that he is necessary and proper party to the lis. The trial court allowed the application vide order dated 6.4.2005. Aggrieved petitioners preferred a revision which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Both the orders are under challenge.
It is noted in the impugned order that petitioners sought permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of several plots, including plot nos.32 and 33, claiming that the plots are recorded as Kabrastan Management Committee and other as Kabij (occupant). In the writ petition the only plea taken is that the courts below have allowed the application for impleadment on forged and manipulated documents being relied upon by the sixth respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that the genuineness of the documents is a question of fact and law to be determined during the trial. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents record the sixth respondent as occupant of the plots over which the petitioners seek injunction hence, it is urged that sixth respondent is a unnecessary party to the lis.
The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact. On specific query learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, so as to warrant interference.
The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 piyush