AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
Heard Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist; Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 10 and Mr. S. K. Chettri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 14.
The revisionist had challenged the impugned Orders dated 07.07.2022 and 02.11.2021 by which an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the revisionist was rejected and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 10 was allowed issuing certain directions upon the respondent no. 13 herein. It is the specific plea of the revisionist that the suit land involved in Title Suit No.08 of 2018 are separate pieces of land described in Schedule A, B and C falling under Sumin Lingchey near Singtam East Sikkim whereas the properties which the revisionist seeks to protect is situated at Chisopani, Revenue Block under Sang Circle.
The learned Trial Judge vide Order dated 07.07.2022 has rejected the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the revisionist seeking impleadment in Title Suit No.08 of 2018 on the ground that the revisionist had failed to show that she has any interest in the suit properties. The learned Trial Judge also held that the suit properties and the land claimed by the revisionist are different. This is exactly what has been claimed by the revisionist through her counsel which is also accepted by Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel who appears for respondent nos.1 to 10 who are the original plaintiffs.
In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was rightly rejected since the revisionist was neither a necessary nor a proper party.
By the impugned Order dated 02.11.2021 the learned Trial Judge had directed the respondent no.3 who is now respondent no.13 to dismantle the illegally erected barbed wire fence in the portion of the suit property and to ensure that there is no interference in the suit property by any third party till disposal of the case. In view of the categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties this order also cannot affect the revisionist at all. Therefore, the impugned Order dated 02.11.2021 also calls for no interference. On hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, it seems the grievance of the revisionist is against the respondent no.13, if at all. The revisionist may, if she so desires pursue her legal remedy in an appropriate forum, if such rights exists. No order as to costs.