Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9217/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9217 of 2008
=========================================================
VANMALIBHAI
MORARBHAI PATEL & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BARDOLI
NAGAR SEVA SADI SANSATHA & 17 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NV GANDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
18.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 14/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner ? original plaintiff has challenged the legality and
validity of the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Civil Judge, Bardoli passed below Exh.21 in Regular Civil
Suit No.20 of 2008, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the
said application of some of the plot holders who are also party to
the partition deed / arrangement.
2. Mr.N.V.Gandhi,
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners ? original
plaintiff has submitted that the petitioners are not claiming any
relief against said third party who are permitted to be joined as
party defendants and that they are only challenging the notice issued
by the Nagarpalika and as no relief is sought against them, learned
trial Court has erred in allowing the said application and permitted
them to be joined as party defendants. It is submitted that there are
dispute amongst the members, however, they can initiate independent
proceedings. He has relied upon decision of the learned Single Judge
rendered in Special Civil Application No.26860 of 2007 as well as
decision of other High Court in support of his contention that
plaintiffs are dominus litis and as no relief is sought
against third party, they are not required to be joined as party ?
defendants.
3. It
is true that what is challenged by plaintiffs in the Suit, is the
notice issued by Nagarpalika, however, plaintiffs are relying upon
partition deed / agreement between plot holders – third parties who
are ordered to be joined as defendants to the suit and that they are
seriously disputing the contention on behalf of the plaintiffs based
upon the aforesaid arrangement. Considering above, when the learned
trial Court has thought it fit to join those persons as party
defendants and treating them as necessary party and/or parties for
effective hearing of suit, it cannot be said that the learned trial
Court has committed any error. There is no dispute to the proposition
of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as
view taken by this Court in Special Civil Application No.26860 of
2007. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the opinion that third party who are ordered to be joined as
party defendants, are necessary parties atleast for the purpose of
effective hearing and determination of the suit. It is not that only
those persons who are required to be joined as defendants against
whom some relief is sought. Those persons whose presence is
considered necessary for effective hearing of the suit, they can be
joined as party defendants. Considering above, learned trial Court
has not committed any error in allowing application Exh.21 in Regular
Civil Suit No.20 of 2008 and permitting third party to be joined as
defendants to the Suit. Hence, present petition is required to be
dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top