AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Invoking extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
questioned correctness of the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banswara (hereinafter
referred to as the ''Trial Court''), rejecting petitioner''s application
under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Shorn of unnecessary details, succinctly stated the factual
matrix of the case at hand is that the respondent No.1 filed a suit
for permanent & mandatory injunction against the Municipal
Council, Banswara, inter alia, seeking an order of injunction
restraining it from interfering with the construction raised by
him.
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an
application dated 15.02.2016, indicating that it is on the basis of
the complaints made by him, the Municipal Council had sprung
into action and that the petitioner''s ancestral property / house is
situated just behind the Fakhri Petrol Pump adjacent to which,
plaintiff''s offending construction is existing.
The plaintiff opposed the petitioner''s request of
impleadment.
The said application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner has however been rejected
by the learned Trial Court, with the following observations:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/applicant, submitted that the Court below has seriously
erred in rejecting petitioner''s application, seeking impleadment.
Mr. Thanvi contended that the Trial Court has cursorily rejected
the petitioner''s application, without considering the petitioner''s
contentions and appreciating the facts obtaining in the present
case. Pointing out from the pleadings of the plaint, Mr. Thanvi
submitted that the plaintiff has himself stated that the action of
the proposed demolition is being taken, pursuant to the
petitioner''s/applicant''s complaint. He invited attention of this
Court towards para No. 4 of the plaint and towards the contents
(para No.5) of the application and submitted, that it is not only
the petitioner''s/applicant''s complaint, as a result whereof, the
action is being taken by the Municipal Council, there is yet another
reason for which, the petitioner wanted to indulge, viz.,
petitioner''s parental house is situated adjacent to the disputed
site, where the petitioner goes quite frequently. He contended
that the petitioner''s right of ingress and express to his parental
house as well as the other persons'' right of way has been
adversely affected by the offending construction; for which, the
petitioner was required to be heard in the suit proceedings.
Mr. Thanvi argued that the Court below has found the
petitioner''s concern to be valid and that is why, it has observed
that the petitioner/applicant may take up separate proceeding(s)
for raising grievance about the construction in question.
Mr. Arpit Bhoot, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/plaintiff, submitted that the petitioner is a busy
body, an RTI Act ivist, who is habitual of filing complaints and
entering into unnecessary and unwarranted litigation. He
contended that none of the petitioner''s individual rights are at
peril, on account of the plaintiff''s construction, which otherwise is
in conformity with law.
All the parties cited various judgments in support of their
cause. However, without going into the contentions of the parties
and without going into the applicability of the judgment(s), this
Court, looking to the very nature of the order, deems it
appropriate to quash and set aside the same. A bare look at the
order impugned reveals that the Court below has not delved upon
the rival contentions and has cursorily rejected petitioner''s
application completely overlooking the pleadings & arguments.
The order under scrutiny is per se non-speaking and unreasoned.
On this short ground, the order impugned dated 13.02.2017
is quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to
decide the petitioner''s impleadment application afresh.
Needless to observe that all the parties will be free to cite
judgments in support of their contentions and the learned Trial
Court shall decide the application under Order I Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, preferably within a period of two months
from today, without being influenced by the findings and
observation made by this Court.
The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.