- (1.) THE petitioner-applicant by way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the "trial court ") in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011, whereby the application of the petitioner for impleading him as party defendant in the suit filed by the respondent no.2-plaintiff against the respondent No.3-defendant has been rejected.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the petitioner-applicant that the respondent No.2-plaintiff had made encroachment on the public way and had also put up construction in the way through which the petitioner had to pass for going to his property and now the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking injunction against the respondent No.3 Municipal Board for restraining it from taking any action against the plaintiff in respect of the said illegal encroachment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, any order passed in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.2-plaintiff has filed the suit against respondent no.3-defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the disputed premises or demolishing the disputed premises, which according to the plaintiff belonged to him. In the said suit, the present petitioner had submitted an application for impleading him as the party defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff had made illegal encroachment over the public way which the petitioner was using for approaching his field and the well. The learend counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the plaintiff would misrepresent the facts in order to mislead the trial court and therefore the petitioner should be made party defendant in the suit. In the opinion of the court, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is not well founded for the simple reason that the respondent No.3 -defendant had issued notices to the respondent No.2-plaintiff considering the representations of the petitioner and other residents of the locality, and hence the interest of the petitioner is being taken care of by the respondent no.3. If any right of the petitioner is being affected by the said alleged illegal encroachment made by the respondent No.2-plaintiff, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the court by filing a separate suit as may be permissible. However, in the suit filed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner could not be said to be a necessary party. The trial court in the impugned order has rightly held that the petitioner being neither the necessary nor the proper party and the respondent No.3 defendant being already a party-defendant, the application of the petitioner deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the present petition does not deserve consideration and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine.;