Lal Mohd Khan vs Civil Judge (J.D.)Rajgarh & Ors on 20 November, 2008

(1) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5218/2006, (2) S.B.C.W.P. NO. 5410/2006, (3) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5374/2006   (4)
S.B.C.W.P.NO.5368/2006 Order dt: 20/11/2008


                                           1/2

               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5218/2006
            (Lal Mohammad Khan vs. CJ (JD), Rajgarh & Ors.)
               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5410/2006
            (Lal Mohammad Khan vs. CJ (JD), Rajgarh & Ors.)
               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5374/2006
            (Lal Mohammad Khan vs. CJ (JD), Rajgarh & Ors.)
               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5368/2006
            (Lal Mohammad Khan vs. CJ (JD), Rajgarh & Ors.)

                        DATE OF ORDER : 20/11/2008

               HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioners.
Mr.Shambhoo Singh, for the respondents.


1.      Heard learned counsels.


2.      This petition is directed against the order dated 13/1/2006,
whereby, the learned trial court has allowed the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of respondents, who claimed to be tenants of
the suit property. The suit has been filed by respondents no.2 and 3 in
representative capacity challenging the transfer of the suit property in
question to present petitioner-defendant no.4 being the public
property.


3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner defendant no.4 submits that
the tenants have no right to join the list as parties and, therefore, the
learned court below has erred in allowing the application under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC.


4.      This submission is opposed by learned counsel for the
 (1) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5218/2006, (2) S.B.C.W.P. NO. 5410/2006, (3) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5374/2006   (4)
S.B.C.W.P.NO.5368/2006 Order dt: 20/11/2008


                                           2/2

respondents.


5.      In the considered opinion of this Court, the applicants under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC namely the tenants of the suit property have no
separate right to join lis between the plaintiff and defendant about the
right of the seller to sell the property in question to the defendant
no.4. The suit under representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8
CPC is being pursued by the plaintiff and tenants have no say in the
matter. At the most they may appear as witnesses either on the side of
plaintiff or defendant. Therefore, the learned court below has erred in
allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.


6.      In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 13/1/2006 is quashed and set aside. Record of
the case may be sent back to trial court.


                                                     (DR.VINEET KOTHARI),J.

Item nos.27 to 30
baweja/-