SBCWP No.210/2009
Hari Singh Vs. Girdawari & Ors.
1
SBCWP No.210/2009
Hari Singh Vs. Girdawari & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 14.1.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.VK Bhadu,for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner’s grievance is that the person-purchaser
of the property in dispute during the pendency of the first
appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority,
Hanumangarh has been impleaded as party by the appellate
court vide order dated 18th June, 2008 by exercising power
under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, only
person who was party before the trial court and has not
been made party to the appeal then only that person can be
added as party respondent in the appeal under Order 41
Rule 20 CPC.
It is true that Order 41 Rule 20 CPC has its own
limited scope for adding party, but at the same time, the
person, who is claiming himself to be interested in the
decision of the suit by virtue of the devolution of the
SBCWP No.210/2009
Hari Singh Vs. Girdawari & Ors.
2
interest in the property during the pendency of the suit or
appeal can be added as party by exercising powers under
Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and also under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Therefore, mere wrong mentioning of provision of law in the
application by the applicant or where the court has
jurisdiction under other provisions of law and has passed
the order under different provision of law then that itself is
not any illegality.
In the facts of the case when the applicant purchased
the property during the pendency of the first appeal and he
has been impleaded as party by the appellate court as
respondent, this Court is not inclined to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
interfere in the said order, which has not been passed
without jurisdiction of the court as the court had jurisdiction
though under different provision of law.
Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and
the same is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-