Full Text
Translation output
^<3
% 27.07.2011
Present: Mr. O.P. Khadaria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for the respondents.
+ CM(M) No. 550/2010 & CM No. 7479/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
18.02.2010 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed.
The present suit is a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction; it had been filed, in the year 1989. Defendant
No. 1 in his written statement had pleaded that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; Agyawanti and the contractor are the necessary parties. Admittedly Agyawanti is the grandmother of defendant No. 1. It is also on record that Agyawanti had expired prior to the date of filing of the suit.
In the present application, it had been contended that in view of the statement of DW-2 (who was the summoned officer from the
House Tax Department) who had deposed that after 1996 up to 2002, the property has been assessed in the name the of Satija family namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija; this fact having been come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 22.04.2009 when he had deposed as DW-2, the present application had been filed seeking impleadment of the aforenoted persons J.N, Satija and Monika Satija.
The impugned order had dismissed this application primarily on the ground of delay; contention being that after such a belated period.
2011:DHC:8808
/I h application cannot be allowed.
Record shows that the defendant in his written statement had taken a plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties who according to defendant No. 1 was Agyawanti. Names of Satija family namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after the testimony of DW-2 was recorded on 22.04.2009 wherein it has been stated by DW-2 that the house tax assessed is in names ofJ.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
Contention of the petitioner that an effective decree of possession cannot be passed as the suit property is now admittedly in possession of J.N. Satija and Monika Satija and as such their impleadment in the present suit to decide the controversy in question is necessary. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has force and is borne out from the record.
The impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is accordingly set aside.
Notice of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code be issued to the proposed defendants namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
Matter is accordingly remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code afresh after hearing
J.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
With these directions, petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 27, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8808
% 27.07.2011
Present: Mr. O.P. Khadaria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for the respondents.
+ CM(M) No. 550/2010 & CM No. 7479/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
18.02.2010 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed.
The present suit is a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction; it had been filed, in the year 1989. Defendant
No. 1 in his written statement had pleaded that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; Agyawanti and the contractor are the necessary parties. Admittedly Agyawanti is the grandmother of defendant No. 1. It is also on record that Agyawanti had expired prior to the date of filing of the suit.
In the present application, it had been contended that in view of the statement of DW-2 (who was the summoned officer from the
House Tax Department) who had deposed that after 1996 up to 2002, the property has been assessed in the name the of Satija family namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija; this fact having been come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 22.04.2009 when he had deposed as DW-2, the present application had been filed seeking impleadment of the aforenoted persons J.N, Satija and Monika Satija.
The impugned order had dismissed this application primarily on the ground of delay; contention being that after such a belated period.
2011:DHC:8808
/I h application cannot be allowed.
Record shows that the defendant in his written statement had taken a plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties who according to defendant No. 1 was Agyawanti. Names of Satija family namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after the testimony of DW-2 was recorded on 22.04.2009 wherein it has been stated by DW-2 that the house tax assessed is in names ofJ.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
Contention of the petitioner that an effective decree of possession cannot be passed as the suit property is now admittedly in possession of J.N. Satija and Monika Satija and as such their impleadment in the present suit to decide the controversy in question is necessary. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has force and is borne out from the record.
The impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is accordingly set aside.
Notice of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code be issued to the proposed defendants namely J.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
Matter is accordingly remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code afresh after hearing
J.N. Satija and Monika Satija.
With these directions, petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 27, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8808
JUDGMENT