Shivraj Singh vs Bharat Singh and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 09.08.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 9A/12, whereby the petitioner''s application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P/4) is rejected. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to agriculture land, survey No. 292, area 1.294 Hectare in Patwari Halka No. 24, Tehsil and District Vidisha.

Petitioner and other villagers preferred a complaint before Tahsildar contending that the land in question is a "Charnoi" land and mentioned as a Government land in the revenue records. Tahsildar passed an order dated 17.06.2011 on the said complaint dated 07.09.2010. The plaintiff/respondent was directed to be evicted from the said land. Reliance is also placed on Khasra entries (page 22) to demonstrate that it is a "Charnoi" land. Against the said order of Tahsildar, the plaintiff/respondent filed an appeal u/s 44 of M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The said appeal dated 11.08.2011 is pending before the appellate authority. By placing reliance on appeal memo, it is contended that the plaintiff/respondent has impleaded the present petitioner as defendant in the appeal. Thus, this land being Charnoi and Govt. land is used by the petitioner and other villagers, they have a grievance against the plaintiff''s suit, wherein he prayed for declaration and permanent injunction on the Government land. The Court below has rejected it on the ground that merely because the petitioner was party in revenue proceedings, he will not become a necessary party in the suit.

Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order and submits that State has not chosen to file reply in the said civil suit and in the fitness of things it is necessary to implead the present petitioner as a defendant.

Per Contra, Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the order impugned and submits that petitioner is not a necessary party. He submits that plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead anybody as a party respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute between the parties that for similar land in question the present petitioner has preferred a complaint, pursuant to which the Tahsildar passed an order dated 17.06.2011. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred appeal in which present petitioner has been admittedly impleaded as a defendant. Thus, it is crystal clear that for the same land there is a litigation pending between the plaintiff and the present petitioner. In almost similar situation, this Court in 1998 (II) MPWN 169 (Kamla Mishra (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P.) opined as under:-

Undisputedly, the non-applicant No. 2 is a party to the proceedings pending in the Revenue Court between the present applicant and non-applicant No. 2. The question of title, mutation etc. were also pending consideration before the Revenue Court. If the non-applicant No. 2 was asserting hostile title and was claiming Bhumiswami rights against the present applicant then he would certainly be necessary party in the present suit because if the judgment is delivered in the present suit in favour of the present applicant against the State Government alone it would adversely affect his rights. The Court below was justified in granting the application.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid order of this Court shows that the order of the trial Court was affirmed, whereby the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed.

Considering the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Court below has erred in rejecting the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. In the fitness of things and to meet the ends to justice, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2012.

Resultantly, the impugned order dated 09.08.2012 is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner (Annexure P/4) under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed. The Court below is directed to proceed from that stage in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. No costs.