// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5182/2008 MoolChand Bothra Versus Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Others Date of Order :: 5th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.K. Maloo for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma for the respondent no.3 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. R.C. Sharma, advocate appears for contesting respondent no.3. The service of respondents no. 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 14/16.2.2004 and for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property in the trial court. The applicant-respondent no.3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead it as one of the defendant in the suit contending therein that disputed property had already been purchased by it vide agreement dated 23.12.1995. The trial court vide its impugned order dated 13.5.2008 allowed the application and directed the applicant to be // 2 // impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the applicant nor its presence is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the trial court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 contended that from para 6 & 8 of the plaint itself it is clear that as and when a notice was issued by plaintiff, the information was sent to the plaintiff that applicant had already purchased the property in dispute. After receipt of this information, the plaintiff also lodged F.I.R. On 4th July, 2004. He, therefore, contended that from the contents of the plaint itself, the applicant is a necessary party. He, therefore, contended that the presence of applicant is necessary and in his absence the effective decree in the case cannot be passed. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the reasons assigned by the trial court for allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved on behalf of the applicant-respondent no.3. // 3 // 6. Para 6 & 8 of the plaint show that there is reference of present applicant and it has been averred that respondent no.2-Govind Pujara has already agreed to sell the property in dispute to the applicant. When the plaintiff received the information about the agreement in between the Govind Pujara and present applicant-the respondent no.3, then plaintiff lodged an FIR dated 4th July, 2004. All these facts show that applicant-the respondent no.3 is interested and affected party in the present suit and in its absence, the effective decree will not be passed in the present case. The reasons assigned by the trial court for allowing the application are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No interference is called for in the said order. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK