Mahesh Sahu vs Rajendra Singh And Others

Vinay Saraf, J

The petitioner who is plaintiff before the trial Court has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in RCSA-35/2019 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Datia whereby the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff for impleading the State of M.P. through Nazul Department as party has been dismissed.

The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is in possession of a shop located in the city of Datia which he obtained on rent from the respondents/defendants and upon the apprehension that the respondents/defendants may dispossess the petitioner from the tenanted shop forcefully without following the due process of law he preferred a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents which is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner approached to SDM Datia by way of preferring an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. wherein the Nazul Department has filed the reply that the property belongs to Nazul and the land upon which the shop is situated is a government land. After getting knowledge of the same from the reply filed by Nazul Department, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC before the trial Court with a request to permit to the petitioner to implead State of M.P. through Nazul Department as defendant in the case. The trial Court after considering the pleadings of the petitioner and after considering the issue involved in the present case dismissed the application by order dated 28.02.2024 mainly on the ground that State of M.P. is neither a proper party nor necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the present suit.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the reply filed in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner came to know that the respondents are not the owner of the property. Though, the petitioner has obtained the suit shop on rent from the respondents, the petitioner filed the application for the purpose that the decree may be passed in favour of the petitioner against the actual owner also.

Considering the pleadings of the petitioner wherein there is no allegation against the State of M.P. or Nazul Department and the fact that no decree for declaring the ownership of the property has been sought, in the absence of any cause of action against the State of M.P. through Nazul Department the plaintiff cannot be permitted to implead State of M.P. as party in the suit. The suit has been preferred simplictor for issuance of permanent injunction which is arising out of a tenancy contract and, therefore, no third party is proper or necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit.

Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court appears to be just and proper. No jurisdictional error or irregularity or even patent illegality committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 28.02.2024. There is no scope for interference in the order. Admission is declined. Petition is dismissed.