// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9753/2007 Nathi Lal S/o late Shri Ganga Sahai Versus Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Rajgarh, District Alwar and Others Date of Order ::: 17.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri G.K. Garg with Shri Laxmi Kant, Counsel for petitioner Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma and Shri Tanveer Ahmed, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 29th October, 2007 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as party in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed property was purchased by the defendant Banwari Lal from the money sent by the applicant, therefore, his interest is involved in the disputed property and he is necessary party in the suit and he be impleaded as party in the suit. // 2 // Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present suit was filed in the year 1991 which was decided by the trial court on 6th March, 1999. Thereafter both the parties preferred Regular Appeals and the first appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court. He, therefore, contended that the suit is pending since 1991 and this application, which has been filed after 17 years, has rightly been dismissed by the trial court. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, the impugned order dated 29th October, 2007 and other documents annexed with the writ petition. A certified copy of the judgment dated 28th February, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar, in Civil Appeals No.38/99 and 39/99 was also referred during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that the disputed property is in the name of the defendant Banwari Lal and, as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the defendant executed an agreement in favour // 3 // of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant Banwari Lal. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the property was purchased in the name of defendant Banwari Lal alone. The suit was filed in the year 1991 and it was decided in the year 1999 and only because of the order of remand passed by the first appellate court the matter is pending in the trial court. The trial court has observed that the applicant has failed to satisfy the court as to why he did not file the application for the last more than seventeen years. The reasonings assigned by the trial court while rejecting the application appear to be perfectly justified. Apart from above, it is also clear that looking to the controversy involved in between both the parties, the defendant alone is only the necessary party and the applicant cannot be said to be the necessary or proper party. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//