- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5870/07 (Hari Kishan Modi vs. Smt.Santosh & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 12/3/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Mathur, ) Mr.Manoj Bhandari, ) for the respondents. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 18/1/2007 (Annex.5) passed in case no.33/2004 by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby, the application filed by respondent no.5 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. According to the facts of the case, a suit was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner with a prayer that possession of the suit premises may be handed over to him after evicting the defendants. In the suit, the respondent no.5, brother of plaintiff-petitioner, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that plaintiff-petitioner Hari Kishan and respondent no.5 Ganesh Lal are real brothers and suit with regard to partition of property in question had - 2 - been filed before the Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner. The said suit no.12/1993 was decided on 12/8/1995 and against the said judgment, appeal is pending consideration before the Rajasthan High Court. It is submitted that since the proceedings of partition are pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner alone cannot file a suit for getting the possession of the shop in question as there are many other share holders of the property and if the suit is decided without impleading him as party respondent then all the share holders will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The petitioner filed reply to the said application and refuted the allegations made therein. The learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner after considering the contentions raised in the application and reply filed by the petitioner, allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded Ganesh Lal son of Shanker Lal as party in the suit and further observed that objections raised by the petitioner in reply will be decided at appropriate stage. - 3 - In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated 18/1/2007 because admittedly there is a dispute pending with regard to partition of property in question and no error of law can be said to have been committed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. Pankaj Baweja