Hazari Lal vs A.D.J. and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by respondent No. 6, Amit Kumar Agarwal and has permitted him to be impleaded as a party-respondent in the civil suit.

Mr. Ajay Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the battle is between the petitioner and the Municipal Board, Kotputli. For, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had participated in the auction of a plot in the year 1994. Since he was the highest bidder in the auction, and since he had deposited one-forth of the auction price, he was entitled to have the plot given to him and he was equally entitled to demand that the Municipal Board accepted three-forth, the remaining amount. However, instead of accepting three-forth, the remaining amount, the Board had gone for re-auctioning of the plot on 11.12.2008. In order to stop the Board from re-auctioning the plot, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and for the permanent injunction before the Civil Court. Therefore, non-petitioner No. 6 is not a necessary party. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in permitting him to be arrayed as a party.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

According to the petitioner himself, once the auction proceedings were held on 24.12.2008, the highest bid was of non-petitioner No. 6. It was duly accepted. Non-petitioner No. 6 had deposited the auction amount with the Municipal Board on 28.01.2009. From these facts, it is obvious that third party rights have been created. Therefore, any order passed by the learned Judge would affect the interest of non-petitioner No. 6. Hence, non-petitioner No. 6 is a necessary party.

The learned Counsel has contended that non-petitioner No. 6 is free to file a separate suit. However, this contention is unacceptable. For, a suit filed by non-petitioner No. 6 would obviously entail that the petitioner would have to be arrayed as a party respondent. Since the issues may be interlinked, even the second suit would have to be consolidated with the present suit. Thus, the suit suggested by the learned Counsel would only be a redundant. The judiciary can no longer afford the luxury of frivolous suit. Since the issues can be decided in the present suit itself, since non-petitioner No. 6 is a necessary party, the arraying of respondent No. 6 as a defendant does not prejudice the interest of the petitioner.

Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.