// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5204/2004 Sugna Mal Alias Sugan Chand & Others Versus Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Sanganer and Others Date of Order ::: 09.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioners Shri M.M. Ranjan with Ms. Daya Sharma & Shri P.N. Paliwal and Shri B.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-respondents No.2 to 6 filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the trial court in respect of disputed property pleading therein that they are in possession of the disputed property, therefore, the Municipal Board, Sanganer may be directed to issue 'patta' in their favour. // 2 // During the pendency of the suit the present applicant- petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 141 CPC for their impleadment as party to the suit, wherein it was stated that the disputed property is in their possession and in this regard they had filed a suit against the Municipal Board, Sanganer, which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 8th December, 1988, therefore, they are directly interested and affected party in the matter, therefore, they should be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing written reply. The trial court, vide its order dated 15th July, 2004, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners. The said order has been impugned in this writ petition filed on behalf of the applicant-petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court shows that it has not considered the contents of the application and made the reference of civil suit, which was decreed in their favour in respect of the disputed property itself. The petitioners were directly interested and affected party in the suit but the trial court, without considering the contents of the application and judgment and decree, referred above, dismissed the application by passing a non-speaking order, which is liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel for the respondents have defended the impugned order. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties in the light of the impugned order passed by the // 3 // trial court and I find that the trial court has not even referred the arguments of applicants, which was taken in application also, wherein it was contended that they are in possession of the disputed property and the civil suit has already been decreed in their favour in this regard. A copy of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the reply thereto along-with copy of the judgment dated 8th December, 1988 passed in favour of the applicants, have been placed on the record along-with this writ petition by the petitioners. From the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the contents of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, I find that the trial court has committed an illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioners. They appear to be necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th July, 2004 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and the applicants-petitioners are impleaded as defendants in the suit. Costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4427/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5204/2004 Sugna Mal Alias Sugan Chand & Others Versus Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Sanganer and Others Date of Order ::: 09.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioners Shri M.M. Ranjan with Ms. Daya Sharma & Shri P.N. Paliwal and Shri B.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//