Decided on June 25,2012

Atiqur Rehman And Others Appellant
Beena Duggal And Another Respondents


- (1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned orders dated 06.10.2006 and 22.10.2011 (annexed as Annexure nos. 8 & 9 to the writ petition), whereby the application of respondent no. 1 for impleadment was allowed.
(2.) After issuance of notice, Shri Gopal K. Verma, Advocate appeared for the respondent no. 1. He made statement that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and requested that petition be heard in absence of counter affidavit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard at admission stage itself.
(3.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the mother of the petitioners, Smt. Jamila Begum, instituted Suit No. 562 of 1999, "Smt. Jamila Begum Vs. Smt. Jamila Khatoon" in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D. ), Dehradun, against the respondent no. 2 for prohibitory injunction and declaration, on the ground that the respondent no. 2 made an oral declaration of Gift (Hiba) in favour of plaintiff. It was alleged that on the basis of oral declaration of Gift, the plaintiff filed application before the Municipal Board, Dehradun for mutation of her name. The defendant also filed an application before the Municipal Board, Dehradun alongwith an affidavit that she had gifted the property to the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff may be mutated in the Municipal Record. Thereafter, the name of the plaintiff, Smt. Jamila Begum, was recorded in the record of Municipal Board. The respondent no. 2 filed her written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. On 13.08.2011, the learned trial Court framed the issues, but the case was adjourned at the behest of defendant. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 moved an application No. 105C to implead her as defendant in the suit, on the ground that there is an agreement to sale dated 07.04.1988 made between Smt. Jamila Khatoon (defendant/ respondent no. 2) and respondent no. 1 regarding property in dispute. In her application, the respondent no. 1 submitted that out of the total consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, she gave Rs. 3,000/- at that time. It was further contended that she had also paid Rs. 90,000/- to the defendant/respondent no. 2 and she has an apprehension that the collusive suit has been filed for misappropriation of money, which was paid by her to defendant/respondent no. 2. The plaintiff filed her objections against the impleadment application stating therein that an agreement to sale does not create any right and third party has no right and title over the property in dispute. She contended that the third party is neither necessary nor proper party, therefore, she cannot be impleaded as respondent in the suit. The defendant/ respondent no. 2 filed her objections against the impleadment application and denied the fact of alleged agreement dated 07.04.1988. On 06.10.2006, the learned trial Court allowed the impleadment application. Feeling aggrieved by the order-dated 06.10.2006, the plaintiff Jamila Begum preferred Civil Revision no. 97 of 2006 "Smt. Jamila Begum Vs. Smt. Beena Duggal and another". On 22.10.2011, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.