1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5657/2007 Laxmilal vs Shri Monohar Lal & Ors. Date of order : 11.12.2007. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.HL Kela, for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. <><><> Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner against the non-petitioner no.1 and 2 an application was submitted by the non-petitioner no.4 for impleading as party. The non-petitioner no.4's contention was that the property in question is ancestral property as his grand-father obtained a Bapi Patta for the property in question. The contention of the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit was that Municipal Board, Bhilwara wants to remove the plaintiff-petitioner from the property in question whereas he is in occupation on the said property as tenant. The details how he came in possession is given in the plaint. Looking to the facts of this case this Court inquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether 2 any suit against M/s Laxmi Oil Industries was filed by the non-petitioner no.4 or not. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a suit was filed by the non-petitioner no.4 against M/s. Laxmi Oil Industries being civil original suit no.25/74 and that was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 21st March, 1990 and appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Addl.District Judge No.1, Bhilwara on 27th Nov., 2000. The trail court impleaded non-petitioner no.4 as party only on the ground that the respondent no.4 is owner of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is dominus litus and is not seeking any relief against the non-petitioner no.4 and question of title cannot be decided in the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay And Ors reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 and earlier judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Mazhar Hussain Vs. Shafi Mohammed & Ors reported in WLN 1969 Part-1 316. It is clear from the facts mentioned in the impugned order itself that the petitioner's entire case is for grant of injunction against the non- 3 petitioner no.1 and 2 and the question of title was absolutely irrelevant to the litigant because the petitioner is not claiming his right on the basis of any of his title. In view of the above reason by impleading respondent no.4, the scope of litigation will certain enlarge and unnecessary question will crop up and without determining those questions, the plaintiff's suit can be decided. In view of the above reason, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed, the order of the trial court dated 24.1.2007 is set aside and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the non-petitioner no.4 is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-