Full Text
Translation output
Jt'
A-9
% 29.08.2011
Present: Mr.A.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajender Bidhuri, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+CM(M) No. 664/2010 & CM No. 9039/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
08.02.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicant
Rakesh Bhardwaj seeking impleadment in the present suit proceodiings vide his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been allowed. In this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, it had been stated that the present suit is a collusive suit filed by the plaintiff and the defendant; the plaintiff is a pujari; vide the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from claiming any right or share in the offerings/tehbazari of the Avdhoot Jogi for
Kalkaji Mandir. The averments in the application under Order 1
Rule 10 of the Code have been perused. The pedigree table given by the plaintiff in his plaint shows that he is a successor of Maya
Nath, an Avdhoot i.e. a person who cannot marry; in the plaint it had been stated that Maya Nath had three sons; contention being that the suit is misleading and misguiding. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this submission of the plaintiff in his plaint
2011:DHC:7175 that he is claiming his title through Maya Nath had inadvertently been mentioned; this is an incorrect position. These contentions have been noted in the impugned order whereupon the Court had concluded that to resolve the controversy between the parties the presence of the applicant i.e. Rakesh Bhardwaj would be necessary. The
A-9
% 29.08.2011
Present: Mr.A.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajender Bidhuri, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+CM(M) No. 664/2010 & CM No. 9039/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
08.02.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicant
Rakesh Bhardwaj seeking impleadment in the present suit proceodiings vide his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been allowed. In this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, it had been stated that the present suit is a collusive suit filed by the plaintiff and the defendant; the plaintiff is a pujari; vide the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from claiming any right or share in the offerings/tehbazari of the Avdhoot Jogi for
Kalkaji Mandir. The averments in the application under Order 1
Rule 10 of the Code have been perused. The pedigree table given by the plaintiff in his plaint shows that he is a successor of Maya
Nath, an Avdhoot i.e. a person who cannot marry; in the plaint it had been stated that Maya Nath had three sons; contention being that the suit is misleading and misguiding. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this submission of the plaintiff in his plaint
2011:DHC:7175 that he is claiming his title through Maya Nath had inadvertently been mentioned; this is an incorrect position. These contentions have been noted in the impugned order whereupon the Court had concluded that to resolve the controversy between the parties the presence of the applicant i.e. Rakesh Bhardwaj would be necessary. The
JUDGMENT
relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant reported in 1056 SC 192 Prithi Nath Vs. Birkha Nath and another had also been noted; it was noted that the pedigree table as contained in the said judgment does not match with the pedigree table contained in the plaint. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 29, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7175
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 29, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7175