Smt. Najma v. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class & Ors.

Smt. Najma versus Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholpur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18524/2012) Date of Order : 22nd November, 2012 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:‐ This petition has been filed against the order dated 1st August, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dholpur dismissing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that one Pappu respondent no.2 herein filed a suit before the trial court as plaintiff against the Nagar Palika Mandal, Dholpur in respect of a parcel of land stating that the Nagar Palika had issued a notice for his dispossession. On the plaintiff’s suit, Nagar Palika filed written statement and in the impugned order the learned trial court has recorded the factum that the suit is pending at final stage. At this stage, the applicant (petitioner herein) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as party in the said suit stating that plot in respect of which the suit had been laid by the plaintiff was in her ownership.

The learned trial court considered the application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and recorded that there is no 2 question of rights of the applicant being affected because the suit as laid was not for declaration but only for permanent injunction. The learned trial court held that aside of the aforesaid fact, the applicant seeking ownership of the plot was free to bring in his own suit, if so warranted. The trial court also held that to implead the applicant as party in the suit at the belated stage would be unjustified entailing only delay in the conclusion of the trial.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused petition including the impugned order.

In my considered opinion, the plaintiff as a dominus litis is free to choose parties he seeks to litigate against and the reliefs claimed against them. Further it is trite that a person, not a party to the suit, would not be bound by any judgment and decree passed in the suit. It is also on record that the trial of the suit is nearing conclusion and to allow impleadment (even otherwise not permissible) will only entail delay in the conclusion of the trial. The order passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned order in exercise of its discretion.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Gupta & Ors. versus Alpana Gupta and Ors. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 578 has held that a reasoned discretionary order passed by the trial court in the course of a suit such as one on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not liable to be interfered with in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of above, I find no force in the petition and the petition is dismissed in limine. (ALOK SHARMA), J. 3 Mak/-144 All Corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed. Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant