The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2019, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad in Original Suit No.348 of 2014 (Mohammad Sameer vs. Dalchand and others), whereby, the learned trial court allowed the impleadment application moved by the defendants/respondents (3rd set) under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading them as parties and further challenged the impugned judmgent and order dated 20.9.2019 whereby, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Firozabad in Civil Revision No.33 of 2019 (Mohammad Sameer Khan vs. Dalchand and others) has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 10.1.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition is finally decided at the admission stage only.
Shri Anwar Husaain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants/respondents (3rd set) had executed an agreement i.e. mortgage with conditional sale on 21.12.2012, in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and possession was also hand over to them with the condition that in case, they would not return the amount of Rs.3 lakhs within one or two years then the petitioner would be entitled for the payment or the sale deed. It has been alleged that the defendants/respondents (2nd set) neither returned the amount nor executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the Original Suit No.348 of 2014 on 258.8.2014 for mandatory injunction with the prayer to give direction to the defendants/respondents (2nd set), not to interfere in his possession and to restrain from selling of the suit property to third party.
In the said suit, the learned trial court on the basis of a report of Amin dated 2.9.2014 granted the order for status quo on 10.4.2017. Thereafter, the defendants/respondents (2nd Set) moved an application on 16.12.2017 with the prayer to permit him to appear as well as to file the written statement. The written statement has now been filed and the petitioner has also filed replication on 28.8.2018. Meanwhile, the plaintiff/petitioner came to know that defendants/respondents (2nd set) have executed the sale deed dated 29.6.2013 to the defendants/respondents (3rd set), and for that, the petitioner filed another O.S. Suit No.1034 of 2016, dated 28.1.2016 against the defendants/respondents (3rd set) for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 29.8.1990 on the basis of which, the subsequent sale deed dated 29.6.2013 was executed. In the said Suit, defendants/respondents (3rd set) have already filed written statement.
In the above background, the defendants/respondents (3rd set) filed an application for impleadment on 17.12.2018 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. in the suit No.348 of 2014, alleging them to be a proper party of the said suit. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an objection to the said application. Learned court below, vide impugned order dated 10.1.2019, allowed the impleadment application of the defendants/respondents (3rd set) on the ground that their names have been recorded in the Nagar Nigam, and therefore, defendants/respondents (3rd set) set are the proper parties.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 10.1.2019, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No.33 of 2019, however, the same was dismissed, vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2009. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.9.2009 and 10.1.2019 respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants/respondents (3rd set) were not relevant party to the Suit as the petitioner had already filed a Suit, challenging the alleged sale deed, on the basis of which, the defendants/respondents (3rd set) were claiming right on the suit property. He has also relied upon the judgment, passed by the Supreme Court, in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others reported in 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1369 in order to substantiate his arguments that a third party or stranger could not become a party in the suit.
The learned trial court while considering the impleadment application, filed on behalf of the defendants/respondents (3rd set), had held that as the suit property was shown in the name of the defendants/respondents (3rd set), as the owner in the records of Nagar Nigam. Therefore, the defendant was able to prove prima facie case in his favour, and for the effective decision of the suit, learned trial court had passed the order for impleadment.
The Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. provides procedure for Court to strike out or to add parties. As per the said provisions, the Court may add a party at any stage, if it would be necessary, in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and to settle all questions involved in the suit.
The learned trial court has found defendants/respondents (3rd set) proper parties as their names were mentioned in the Municipal records in regard to the suit property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the said fact. Once the names of the plaintiff/defendant (3rd set) is mentioned in Municipal record, the defendants/respondents (3rd set) are the relevant party.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Rishabh [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]