1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7617 OF 2009 Bhagatraj G. Ahuja. .. Petitioner Vs Dilip Bhawandas Narisinghani & Ors. .. Respondents ­­ Shri B.G. Ahuja, Petitioner in person. Shri Amit Borkar for the Respondents. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th January 2010. P.C: . On the last date, I have heard the submissions of the Petitioner appearing in person. 2. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the trial Court on an application made by the Petitioner. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the Petitioner appearing in person, it will be necessary to set out facts of this case. The 1st and the 2nd Respondents filed a civil suit against the 3rd Respondent. The suit has been filed for injunction restraining the 3rd Respondent from interfering with the alleged possession of the 1 and the 2nd Respondents over the suit property, more particularly described in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. The suit property is an open space admeasuring 15 x 40 ft. bearing City Survey No. 2636 together with the tin shed thereon having an area of 2 600 sq.ft. Situated at Gandhi Nagar Colony, Kolhapur. The case made out by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents is that the father of the 1st Respondent had erected the tin shed in the year 1949 by encroaching upon the suit property. The allegation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is that the possession of the father of the 1st Respondent over the suit property was regularized by the State Government. The case is that the 1st Respondent has allowed the 2nd Respondent to occupy the property. Allegation in the plaint is that the 3rd Respondent attempted to dispossess the 1st and 2nd Respondents and therefore, the present suit has been filed. An application was made by the present Petitioner in the said suit praying that he may be allowed to intervene in the suit in public interest. In the said application, the Petitioner relied upon the orders dated 12th September, 2007 and 2nd April, 2008 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 149 of 2004. It is pointed out in the application that there are many litigations pending in the Civil Court at Kolhapur relating to the property bearing C.T.S. No.2636. The Petitioner prayed that as the suit property is a subject matter of a land scandal, he may be permitted to intervene. By the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the application made by the Petitioner has been rejected. 3. The Petitioner appearing in person has invited my attention to the orders dated 12th September, 2007 and 2nd April, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.149 of 2004 filed by 3 one Hiralal Keshav Galial. The Petitioner was an intervenor in the said Petition. He submitted that in terms of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court under Order dated 2nd April, 2008, he filed the application for intervention before the trial Court by invoking Rule 8A of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code” ). He submitted that even the Division Bench noted that there is a land scandal. He submitted that whether the father of the 1st Respondent is really entitled to the suit property is a question involved in the suit. He submitted that the decision in the suit will involve interpretation of documents. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chandrasekharan & Ors. v. S. Kanakarajan & Ors. [ (2007)5 SCC 669 ]. He submitted that interpretation of a document which goes to the root of the title of a party gives rise to a substantial question of law. He relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of Madras City Flour Mill Owners Association v. M. Radha & Ors., [(2004)1 M.L.J. 464]. He submitted that the law as regards the power of the Court to permit impleadment of a third party is liberal and the law permits all interested parties to be impleaded in the legal interest. He submitted that interest of the Petitioner in the suit property is equitable and, therefore, his application for intervention ought to have been allowed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that by filing the application on which the impugned order was 4 passed, the Petitioner had invoked Rule 8A of Order I of the said Code. Rule 8A reads thus:­ “8­A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings. ­ While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceeding of the suit as the Court may specify.” 5. For the applicability of Rule 8A, the following conditions must be satisfied:­ (i) There is a question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit; (ii) The Court is satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in the question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit; and (iii) It is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law. 6. Reliance has been placed on the orders of the Division 5 Bench in Public Interest Litigation No. 149 of 2004 and, in particular, the order dated 2nd April, 2008. It is not in dispute that the property which was subject matter of the said Public Interest Litigation was the land bearing C.T.S. No.2636 at Gandhi Nagar, Kolhapur. Relevant portion of the said order reads thus:­ . “A short controversy is raised in this petition and we do not think any public interest is involved. The petitioner came to this Court complaining that respondent No.7 had occupied the land which belonged to the Government and was reserved for water reservoir and had constructed a huge building over the land. Respondent No.7’s case is that the land is allotted to him under the Displaced Persons Act as respondent No.7 has migrated from parts of the country which are now parts of the Pakistan after partition of the country. The intervention application has been made by the intervenor who made certain submissions. 2. We feel these are questions which can be addressed by the Competent Authority. If anybody including the petitioner is aggrieved that the land should not have been assigned or allotted, there are remedies available to him. If the intervenor has any grievance, he can also approach the concerned authority. If the petitioner or the intervenor makes any grievance before any appropriate authority, that appropriate authority may decide the matter on merits. 3. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. All contentions raised by the petitioner can be raised by him before the appropriate authority as we have not gone into the merits of the case.” 7. It appears that the grievance in the PIL was that Respondent No.7 in the said Petition had occupied the land bearing CTS 6 No.2636 which was vesting in the Government and was reserved for water reservoir. The Division Bench specifically observed that no public interest is involved in the controversy. The division Bench reserved the liberty in favour of the Intervenor therein ( the Petitioner in this Petition) to approach the Competent Authority with his grievance. 8. The present suit is simplicitor for injunction. The State Government is not a party to the suit. The relief of injunction sought by the 1st and 2nd Respondents is based on the alleged possession of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Even assuming that the issue of title is framed and decided in the said suit, it is obvious that the State Government in whom property is allegedly vesting will not be bound by the decision of the Civil Court. If the land which is subject matter of the said suit is the property of the State Government, notwithstanding the decree passed in the suit, the State Government will not be prevented from initiating any action in accordance with the law for evicting a person found in possession of the suit property. Moreover, the Division Bench has already protected the remedy of the Petitioner of approaching the Competent Authority with his grievances. If the Petitioner wants to contend that a Government land is in unauthorized possession of a third party, then the Petitioner can always move the Competent Authority or the State Government for initiating appropriate proceeding. 9. There is no question of law involved in the suit which is a suit 7 simplicitor for injunction. In any case, considering the limited scope of the suit, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that it is necessary in the public interest to allow the Petitioner to present his opinion on the alleged question of law. The decision of the Madras High Court in M. Radha’s case (supra) will not help the Petitioner as it has not dealt with the provisions of Rule 8A of order I of the said Code. 10. In the circumstances, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order. The Petition is rejected. However. All contentions raised by the Petitioner regarding nature of the suit property are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)