Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to Sri R.K. Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
In view of the order proposed to be passed in the present writ petition, notice against the respondent Nos.4 to 10 is dispensed with.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the revisional court in Revision No.30 of 2018 (Sobhnath and others Vs. Radhe Shyam and others), whereby, trial court passed an order, rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the opposite parties for their impleadment.
The trial court dismissed the application holding that the opposite parties are not necessary parties to be impleaded in the array of parties of defendant.
The revisional court by recording cogent reasons and finding, has recorded that in case the aforesaid parties are not impleaded in the array of parties, their rights shall be affected in case otherwise orders are being passed by the trial court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the trial court and accepted the application 26 'ka' '2' which was filed for the impleadment of opposite parties as defendant.
Assailing the order passed by the revisional court dated 5.5.2018, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties are not necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit and the same will delay the expeditious disposal of the suit. In case they are permitted to be impleaded as defendant, the proceeding of deciding the suit will be delayed. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on an oral partition, the property was partitioned and shares were given to the family members of the petitioner as well as of respondents, therefore, due to filing of the suit for declaration of title, they are not affected in any manner and are not neecessary parties to be impleaded in the suit.
On the other hand, learned Standing counsel and Sri R.K. Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that there is no material on record in regard to the objection raised by the petitioner and without leading evidence on the point that whether any oral partition was made or not, the issue in this regard shall be decided by the trial court after providing opportunity to the parties, thus, their submission is that by filing the suit, the petitioner is trying to get ex-parte order and without impleading the opposite parties, the issue involved cannot be decided in true spirit, therefore, their submission is that the revisional court has committed no error in law in passing the order under challenge, the writ petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has held that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction and after the death of the plaintiff's father, on the basis of oral compromise, partition was made and according to the shares, the land was provided to each and every claimant. It further records that the suit has been filed against the State, therefore, no ground has been made for the impleadment and has rejected the application vide order dated 30.3.2018.
Against the said order dated 30.3.2018, Revision No.30 of 2018 was filed wherein after consideration of all material on record and relying upon the judgment produced before the revisional court by the revisionist, a finding has been returned after hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the trial court has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the application for impleadment filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
In the light of the judgment referred in the order, the revisional court arrived at the conclusion that by permitting impleadment of the opposite parties of the writ petition, each and every controversy can be decided by leading evidence and providing opportunity to the parties to place the material on record and by recording cogent reasons, the order passed by the trial court was set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which was numbered as Application No. 26 'ka' '2' was allowed.
In the opinion of the Court, the revisional court has committed no error in law in allowing the revision, permitting impleadment of the opposite parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
However, it is provided that the trial court shall expedite the hearing of the Regular Suit No.1375/2012 and shall decide the same within a period of 1 year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Gautam