Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/394/2012 on 28 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No.394 of 2012.
Decided on: 28.12.2012.
Ajay Chaudhary, Son of Shri Chander Prakash, Resident of Village Jawahar Nagar, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, (H.P.).
…..Petitioner.
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Tek Chand Rana, Son of late Shri K.R.Rana, Resident of Village Upper Barol, Post Office Dari, Mauza Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, (H.P.).
2. Ranjna, D/o
) Jagdish Chand, All
3. Reshmi, D/o
) residents of V.& P.O.
4. Anuradha, D/o
) Dari,Tehsil Dharamshala,
5. Dadhna, D/o
) Distt. Kangra (HP).
6. Sanjay S/o
)
7. Santosh Kumari, Wd/o )
……Respondents.
8. Ashwani Kumar,
9. Sunil Kumar, Both sons of late Shri Shakti Chand, residents of Village Gabli Dar, P.O. Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, (H.P.).
…..Proforma Respondents.
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate
with Mr.Anshul Attri, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.09.2012 passed by ______________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in C.M.A.No.122/10 in C.A. No.70-D/XIII/06/10, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 had filed a Civil Suit No.130 of 2000 for partition which was decreed on 18.04.2006 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (2), Dharamshala. The respondents 8 and 9 filed an appeal against judgment, decree and is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner in the appeal moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal, he purchased a part of the suit property from Urimla Devi, co-sharer, on 19.06.2008. It has been submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner.
3. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 for partition which was decreed on 18.04.2006. Urmila Devi from whom petitioner allegedly purchased a part of the suit property on 19.06.2008 was not a party in the suit filed by Tek Chand nor she was impleaded as party in the appeal prior to her alleged sale in favour of petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impleadment of petitioner as defendant in the appeal will completely adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Tek Chand opted not to implead Urmila Devi as defendant in the suit. There is nothing on record that any specific relief was prayed against Urmila Devi. The suit filed by Tek Chand in which Urmila Devi was not impleaded party will be binding on the parties in the suit. In case the applicant is impleaded, at this stage, it will reopen the entire suit again. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly considered the matter in not allowing the application of the petitioner at the stage of appeal for impleading petitioner as defendant in the appeal. There is no merit in the petition for issuing notice to respondents. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
( Kuldip Singh ),
Judge. December 28, 2012. (krt)