Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DIGAMBER JAIN PAN.MAHA.TEM.TRUST & ORS. versus CIVIL JUDGE(J.D.)EAST,BHILWARA & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DIGAMBER JAIN PAN.MAHA.TEM.TRUST & ORS. v CIVIL JUDGE(J.D.)EAST,BHILWARA & ORS. - CW Case No. 6529 of 2005 [2006] RD-RJ 246 (25 February 2006)

SBCivil Writ Petition No.6529/2005

Shri Digambar Jain v. Civil Judge (JD),Bhilwara

Panchayat Mahaveer and others.

Temple Trust & Ors. 25th January, 2006

Date of Order ::

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. Usman Ghani, for the petitioners. ....

In a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears, an application was filed by the respondents applicants for being impleaded as defendants. The applicants contended that being trustees they are receiving the rent from the defendants, as such the plaintiffs were having no right to file the suit against the tenant for eviction of premises and recovery of rent.

By the order dated 29.4.2004 learned Civil

Judge (JD), Bhilwara accepted the application and ordered to implead the applicant respondents No.4 to 11 as defendants. Being aggrieved by the same instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner plaintiffs.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the court below erred while accepting the application preferred by the applicant respondents

No.4 to 11 under Order 1 Rules 6 and 10 read with

Section 151 CPC for the reason that the applicants are having no right to be impleaded as defendants to the suit in question. It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff petitioners No.2 to 10 are the trustees of petitioner No.1 Shri Digambar Jain

Panchayat Mahaveer Temple Trust and, therefore, nobody else than the trustees could have filed the present suit for eviction of tenant and recovery of rent.

According to counsel for the petitioners the applicant respondents are strangers in the suit proceedings.

Heard counsel for the petitioners.

The trial court while accepting the application preferred under Order 1 Rules 6 and 10 read with Section 151 CPC considered the contention raised by the applicant respondents that they are receiving rent of premises concerned and they have been declared as trustees by the Department of

Devsthan. They are also managing the shops pertaining to which the suit in question was filed. The trial court on basis of available facts found the applicant respondents a party necessary to the proceedings. The court below, therefore, has not committed any error which may warrant interference of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition, therefore, is having no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.