AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''able Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave
This petition is styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction quashing the judgment and order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below application Exh. 142
in Regular Civil Suit No. 612 of 2007, by which, the application of the petitioners for being joined as parties in the suit came to be rejected.
Regular Civil Suit No. 612 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiffs who are successors of a common ancestor in respect of agricultural land bearing
Survey Nos. 505 to 507 of village Aabhva, District Surat, which was held as inami lands, for which inquiry proceedings are pending before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioners that they are proper as well as necessary parties to the suit and the suit property is having
common ancestor like of plaintiffs and, therefore, as required under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the settled
parameters of law in respect of jointer of necessary and/or proper party, the trial court ought to have allowed the petitioners to be impleaded as
parties as prayed for. That, when the original plaintiffs started acting contrary to law and there was apprehension of colluding with the government
officers, they have decided to move the application for impleadment and, accordingly, the application was filed. That, by permitting the petitioners
to be impleaded as parties, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and, to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, the trial court ought to have
exercised power and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On perusal of the record of the case and the order impugned, the trial court, in paragraphs 4 to 7, has held as under:
Looking to the facts of the present suit, the suit properties which are situated at village Aabhva were given to one ancestor of plaintiff namely
Nawab Mir huruddin Husheinkhan Vald Hushenuddin Hushenkhan, resident of Vadodara, in gift since long back. Further, it is the say of plaintiff
that he is a successor of one branch of Nawab Mir Nuruddin therefore he has legal right in the suit property and he prayed for declaration and
permanent injunction against the Government, as at present it is in the name of defendant-government.
Same way, present applicant, by this application stating that he is also the successor of one branch of Nawab Mir Nuruddin of Vadodara,
therefore, he has right in suit property, and he has applied by this application to join him as a third party.
For this application, the Court has also heard plaintiff''s learned advocate and the learned advocate of defendant-government.
Now, looking to the facts of the suit, it is clear that plaintiff has prayed against the defendant-government. And no prayer against the present
applicant. Further, the cause of action have been arisen to present plaintiff in the year 2007 after giving statutory notice, while the present
applicant''s cause of action is not arisen as he has not issued statutory notice to defendant-government. Further, the present plaintiffs & applicant''s
prayers are against defendant-government separately Moreover, in this application, present applicant has not cleared that in which capacity he
want to join as a party in this suit. Further, the present applicant has not mentioned his perfect interest and prayer in the suit property, which are
different from present plaintiff against defendant-government. The present suit of plaintiff is pending for cross examination of defendant-
government''s witness and thereafter, this application is given, is not just and proper, therefore also, the present application is not found legal.
Present applicant''s cause of action has not arisen. Therefore present application is not tenable. Therefore following is the final order for the interest
of justice: Third party application vide Exh. 142 is hereby disallowed.
Thus, what is weighed with the trial court is about cause of action which had arisen as early as in 2007 and the plaintiff had filed the suit after
issuing statutory notice against the government and, besides, in the application filed by the petitioners for being joined as parties, no specific plea
was made about their interest and the manner in which they would be vitally interested and, if the issue is adjudicated, it would be futile unless they
are so impleaded. The trial court noticed that the suit of the plaintiffs was pending for cross examination and the above reasoning of the trial court
amounts to exercise of discretion based on sound judicial principles. No case is made out to entertain the present petition. Hence, this petition is
rejected summarily with no order as to costs.