Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1919 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Sewak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh,Shyam Mani Shukla
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This writ petition has been filed from an order of the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.2019, whereby it has set aside an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhansi, in Suit No.24 of 2013-14 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'the Act'), declining to implead the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 to this writ petition.
A perusal of the orders impugned show that the suit for declaration was filed by respondent No.9 against the petitioner amongst three other defendants, two of whom have been substituted by now. The suit is not only one for declaration but also for ejectment under Section 209 of the Act. The plaintiff has claimed relief to the effect that a decree be passed in his favour and against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the suit (defendant No.2 being the petitioner), to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent No.9 be declared bhumidhar in possession of Khasra No.654/1.70 Acres situate at village Lahargird, Pargana and District Jhansi. A further relief has been sought, in rather uncertain terms to the effect that if in the opinion of the Court, possession of the plaintiff be not found, the plaintiff be put in possession after dispossessing any unauthorized person found in occupation. The third, fourth and fifth respondents here are purchasers from the original plaintiff Mohd. Maqsood, arrayed here as respondent No.9, through a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2004. The suit aforesaid was filed in the year 1982. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have now made an application in the suit seeking to be impleaded as plaintiffs to the suit on the basis of their rights derived through assignment under Order I, Rule 10 CPC. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court, which led the petitioner to file a Revision. The Revision has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 27.05.2019, where the Board have set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 07.09.2018 rejecting the Impleadment Application of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, and remand the impleadment application dated 18.01.2018/20.01.2018 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be determined afresh in accordance with the order of the Board of Revenue, as said in the body of the judgment impugned.
Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Aditya Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, for respondent No.3, Sri S.M. Shukla, for respondent No.10 and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three applicants, who are respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 here, have no right to be impleaded as plaintiffs, to the suit in place of the original plaintiffs, inasmuch their rights are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens. He submits that the original plaintiff is to prosecute the suit and whatever is the event in the suit, would bind the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are purchasers pendente lite. According to him, the said respondents are neither proper or necessary party to be impleaded to the suit. In any case, they cannot be impleaded as plaintiffs.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 10 have opposed the motion to admit this petition to hearing. They submit that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is not an order of moment, and not finally determinative of the parties right. It only remands the matter to the Trial Court to determine the Impleadment Application afresh. It does not allow or decide the Impleadment Application, either way. It is their submission that the writ petition against an order of this kind ought not to be entertained.
This Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 10. The Board of Revenue has not disposed of the Impleadment Application on merits, but setting aside the disposition of that application by the Sub-Divisional Officer, remitted the matter to the Trial Court to determine the Impleadment Application afresh. No rights have been conclusively decided by the order impugned. Moreover, the order impugned is one that itself arises from an interlocutory order made on the Impleadment Application. Even if the decision of that Impleadment Application is regarded as final, the remand order passed by the Board is certainly not. In case the Impleadment Applications were allowed, it would be open to the petitioner to question the correctness of that order, if it goes against the petitioner, on all or any of such grounds as the petitioner may be advised.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed itself on the merits of the parties claim and the Trial Court shall decide the Impleadment Application in accordance with law afresh, uninfluenced by any observation of this Court. The Trial Court shall decide the Impleadment Application afresh within fifteen days of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 NSC