1 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.49/2008 (Gram Panchayat, Partapur Vs. Ayub Mohammed & ors.) Date of Order :: 28th February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Deelip Kawadia for the petitioner Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, though this Court has reservations on the propositions as stated in the order dated 22.01.2007 by the learned trial court for impleading the petitioner Gram Panchayat, Partapur as party defendant to the suit in question where no cause of action has been stated qua the present petitioner nor any relief has been claimed against it; and this Court has further reservation on the reasons stated by the learned trial court in its order dated 18.12.2007 while rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that because the petitioner was impleaded only by the order of the court, therefore, the provisions of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act would not apply; and it is noticed that the order of impleadment was passed only after the plaintiff moved an application in that regard but and however, crux of the matter remains that in the suit as filed by the plaintiff (plaint – Annexure-1) no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against the present petitioner – Gram Panchayat Partapur and the suit cannot essentially be 2 termed as a suit referable to Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Moreover, the petitioner has already filed a written statement and other aspects of the matter could be dealt by the court concerned in accordance with law after framing of relevant issues. In the overall circumstances of the case, the learned trial court cannot be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction and the impugned order cannot be said to be leading to manifest failure of justice. In the circumstances of the case, no interference is called for so far as the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned. It may also be observed that in view of the frame of the suit in question, the prayer as made by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be said to be leading to a position that the order if made in its favour, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. It could have at the most resulted in termination of proceedings qua the petitioner but not finally the entire of the proceedings as contemplated by proviso to Section 115 CPC. The revision petition stands rejected. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.