Jagmohan Singh and Another vs Charitable Trust Isarda and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner-plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 16.11.2013 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by the respondent-applicant, the Charitable Trust, Iserda, and impleaded them as respondent as party defendant in the civil suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs claimed to have inherited the Iserda Garh on the basis of a will dated 9.10.1985. They further claimed that they are in possession of the Iserda Garh. However, as the respondent-defendants were trying to oust the petitioner-plaintiffs from the Iserda Garh, they filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, when the evidence of defendants was being recorded, the Charitable Trust filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. By order dated 16.11.2013 the said application has been allowed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Charitable Trust has no concern with the Iserda Garh. Secondly, it is not in possession of the Iserda Garh. In fact it is the petitioner-plaintiffs who are in possession thereof Moreover, in the application filed by the Charitable Trust they have merely challenged the capacity of one of the Ranis of Maharaja Col. Bahadur Singh, namely Phanindra Raj Laxmi for leaving a Will in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Charitable Trust is neither a necessary, nor a proper party to the suit. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in impleading the Charitable Trust as a party defendant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that while the petitioner-plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the Iserda Garh, the Charitable Trust also claims to be in possession thereof. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that the other defendants, too, have admitted that the possession is with the Charitable Trust. Moreover, according to the Charitable Trust it has already filed a civil suit challenging the veracity and validity of the Will left by Phanindra Raj Laxmi. Since both the parties claim to be in possession of the property in dispute, since the interest of the Charitable Trust would adversely be affected by any decree passed in the present suit, obviously the Charitable Trust is a necessary party. Therefore, it would be just to implead the Charitable Trust as a party defendant.

Since the learned Magistrate has given cogent and legal reasons for allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.