1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10470/2007 {Nathu Lal Saini Versus Additional Civil Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 23rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. M.M. Ranjan ) for the petitioner with ) Mr. Rajat Ranjan) Mr. Bharat Saini for the respondent no. 5 BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff – petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of plot No. M-5, Anand Puri, Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur against the Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Secretary Local Bodies and state Government through Collector. During the pendency of the suit, the applicant no.5 Shyam Singh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party on the ground that the disputed plot was allotted to him by the then Urban Development Trust in the year 1961, therefore, he is interest and affected party in the present suit. The trial court allowed the said application and impleaded 2 Shyam Singh as defendant no. 4 in the suit vide order dated 2nd November, 2007 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier a suit was filed by respondent no.5 Shyam Singh for permanent injunction, wherein a finding was recorded that he is not in possession of the property in dispute and his suit was dismissed and an appeal therefrom was also dismissed. He further contended that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was also filed by him in another suit filed by him for permanent injunction wherein his application was dismissed on the ground that he is not in possession of the disputed property, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order allowing the application to implead the respondent no 5. as party and as such the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set- aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 defended the impugned order and contended that the earlier proceedings initiated by him or by the present plaintiff are only in respect of permanent injunction wherein the possession 3 of plot is material but so far as the present proceeding is concerned it relates to declaration of a property and admittedly the same was allotted to him in the year 1961, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2007 alongwith the other documents placed on record with the writ petition. It is true that earlier a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent no.5 Shyam Singh and issue no.1 was framed in that suit as to whether the disputed plot no. M-5 was allotted to him and he is in possession or not. The trial court recorded a finding that it was allotted to him but he is not in possession and consequently dismissed the suit for injunction. The earlier application which was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was also dismissed on the ground that he is not in possession. The earlier proceedings were only in respect of permanent injunction where the question of possession over the disputed property is relevant but so far as present case is concerned, it relates to declaration in respect 4 of disputed plot which was allotted to applicant respondent no. 5 - Shyam Singh. The trial court has assigned good reasons for allowing the application and the said order of the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK