Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3.8.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) NO. 4 Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Suit NO. 637 of 2010, whereby the application of the petitioner -plaintiff for impleading Chhatrapati Shivaji Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti as party defendant filed under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC, has been rejected. It is submitted by learned counsel Ms. Suman Sharma for the petitioner -plaintiff that the respondents No. 2 and 3 in their written statement had contended that the land in question originally belonged to Chhatrapati Shivaji Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, and therefore the said Samiti would be a necessary party to resolve the dispute involved in the suit. According to her, the trial court has committed the error in not permitting the petitioner to implead the said Samiti as party defendant in the suit.
(2.) IN the instance case, it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 claiming eastern right over the disputed land situated on the eastern side of petitioner's property. In the said suit, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed their written statement contending interalia that the disputed land was purchased by Bhagwan Sahay in 1971 from Chhatrapati Shivaji Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and the said Bhagwan Sahyay sold out the same to some third party and that the defendants had purchased the said disputed land from the third party. In view of the said contention raised by the defendants in the written statement, petitioner -plaintiff had submitted an application seeking permission to implead the said Samiti as party defendant in the suit on the ground that the said Samiti would be a necessary party. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the suit of the plaintiff is for permanent injunction in which he has claimed his eastern right over the disputed land and there is no dispute as to who is the owner of the disputed land. Under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly held that the Samiti was not a necessary party to the suit and the plaintiff had to prove his case on his own strength. The Samiti being neither the proper nor the necessary party, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine.;