Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiffpetitioner impleading respondents no. 1 to 3 as defendants who put in appearance and filed written statement raising objection that the land in dispute over which the petitioner is claiming injunction belongs to Gaon Sabha and as such, the Gaon Sabha was a necessary party. An application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was also moved by the respondent no. 4 Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to implead the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee. Trial court vide order dated 28.4.2009 dismissed the application against which a revision was preferred, which has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffpetitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the suit was in the final stage the application was filed by the Gaon Sabha with the sole intention to delay final disposal of the suit. It has further been submitted that the land in dispute is ancestral property and Gaon Sabha has no concern with it. It is also submitted that the trial court finding that the application has been moved at a very belated stage had rightly dismissed but the revisional court has wrongly and illegally set aside the order.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Trial court dismissed the impleadment application on technical grounds and delay in moving the same. However, the revisional court found that the objection was raised at the initial stage by the defendants in their written statement that the land in dispute belongs to Gaon Sabha and the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the Gaon Sabha but the trial court did not frame any issue in this regard and proceeded with the suit.
Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. empowers the court to implead any party whether as plaintiff or defendant whose presence the court finds necessary in order to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit at any stage of the proceedings. The revisional court after analysing all the facts and circumstances has rightly held that Gaon Sabha was a necessary party to be impleaded in the proceedings and the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground that it was moved belatedly. From the entire facts, this Court is also of the view that the presence of the Gaon Sabha is necessary for effective and complete adjudication and settlement of the question involved in the suit and thus, no illegality has been committed by the revisional court in allowing the impleadment application of the Gaon Sabha, which may warrant any interference.
The petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 19.1.2010 nd