Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
SANTOSH & OTHERS V/S TELARAM & OTHERS, decided on Friday, December 2, 2016.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Civil Writ Petition No. 15130 of 2016. ] 02/12/2016
Judge(s) : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Advocate(s) : Sageer Ahmed.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (2) WLN 322"  ==   ""  







    1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 13.05.2015 passed by Sub Division Officer Dataramgarh District Sikar(for short 'SDO') allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10CPC has been affirmed.2. Applicant Sitaram filed the aforesaid application under Order 1 Rule 10CPC seeking his impleadment in the revenue suit pending before the SDO on the ground that he has purchased part of the disputed land. SDO vide order dated 13.05.2015 allowed the application. The petitioners being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2016.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the applicant Sitaram is a subsequent purchaser and a stay order was operating against alienation of the lands in question. Therefore the subsequent purchase of the disputed land by Sitaram was barred by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which has not been considered by the courts below. Impleadment of the applicant Sitaram would amount to multiplicity of the litigation.4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record this Court finds that SDO while allowing the application of the applicant Sitaram has observed that interest of the applicant is involved in the disputed land because he has purchased the same. The Board of Revenue has also considered the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10CPC which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the settle all the questions involved in the suit be added. Reliance has also been placed by the Board of Revenue on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Nawab John & Others v. V. N. Subramaniyam 2012 DNJ (SC) 720 wherein it has been held that application filed for impleadment by the subsequent purchaser of the disputed land in the suit should be considered liberally. In the facts of the present case also the applicant Sitaram is a proper and necessary party and the SDO has rightly allowed his application for impleadment.5. In view of above there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by both the courts below. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.6. Stay application also stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed.