- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application filed by the respondent No.4, Marium Bano, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and has impleaded her as party defendant.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. The petitioner has not claimed any relief against the respondent No.4. Relying on the case of Kishan Sharma & Anr. v. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & Ors.,2012 3 DNJ 1370], the learned counsel has pleaded that where no relief is claimed against a party, such a party is not necessary party. Therefore, such a party cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in impleading the respondent No.4 as party defendant.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has contended that it is the case of the petitioner that the plot in question was originally allotted to the late husband of respondent No.4, Mohd. Ishaq. The petitioner further alleges that through an agreement to sale, he has come into possession of the plot. The petitioner further alleges that he has been in possession ever since 1994. However, on the other hand, the respondent No.4 claims that she continues to be in possession of a plot which was allotted to her late husband. She further claims that the agreement to sale would not transfer the title of the plot to the petitioner. Moreover, in the prayer made in the suit, the petitioner has prayed that the Nagar Nigam should be prevented from allotting the plot to anyone else. If the plot continues to be in possession of the respondent No.4, and the plot was originally allotted to her late husband, in case, prayer is granted by the civil court, obviously it will adversely affect the interest of the respondent No.4. Moreover, since both the parties claim to be in possession of the plot, it is an issue to be decided by the court and it is the respondent No.4, who can throw light on this issue. Thus, she is a necessary and proper party. Lastly, the order dated 23.5.2009 has already been complied with. A written statement has been filed by the respondent No.4 and a rejoinder to her statement has also been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel has not only supported the impugned order, but has also pleaded that the writ petition has become infructuous.;