Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18756
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1034 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mathura Prasad And 4 Others
Respondent :- Dudhai @ Budhai And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Shukla,Shubham Shukla
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order
dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Additional District
Judge/F.T.C., Gonda in Civil Revision No. 102 of 2022
whereby the Revisional court has dismissed the revision of the
petitioners affirming the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13, Gonda
in Regular Suit No. 62 of 1991 whereby an application for
impleadment moved at the behest of private respondent no. 2
was allowed.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in
the suit, the original defendants had expired. The petitioners
have moved an application for substitution and in response
thereto the husband of the private respondent no. 2 came to be
substituted, however, at that time, the existence of the will said
to have been executed in favour of Smt. Majhila, the private
respondent no. 2 was not brought on record.
It is at a later stage that Smt. Majhila moved an application for
impleadment on the basis of a will in her favour and that in
respect of the disputed property, her name was recorded in the
revenue records.
Considering the aforesaid, the Trial Court by means of order
dated 10.11.2022 allowed the application and directed the
petitioner to implead Smt. Majhila as a party to the suit. This
order dated 10.11.2022 was assailed by the petitioners in
revision and the Revisional Court while dismissing the revision
has affirmed the order of the Trial Court without noticing that it
was an application by which the proceedings were sought to be
delayed and despite the husband of the private respondent no. 2
having been substituted, there was no candid disclosure
regarding the will in favour of Smt. Majhila.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the
perusal of the material on record, the counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute the fact that Smt. Majhila had sought her
impleadment on the basis of a will and that in respect of the
disputed property, her name had already been recorded in the
revenue records.
It is considering the aforesaid and for the effective and
complete adjudication that the Trial Court has exercised its
discretion in impleading the private respondent no. 2 and the
Revisional Court as well has found favour with the reasoning of
the Trial Court.
This Court does not find that there is any error in the order of
the impleadment since it is the issue of necessary parties which
is required to be considered especially noticing that the suit was
in respect of cancellation of a sale deed which is a substantive
suit wherein the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated.
Since the private respondent no. 2 had already got her name
mutated and prima facie she had an interest in the property in
question on the basis of a will executed by late Sri Nanku,
accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in
the petition which is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any expression
on merits of the matter and it has been considered only for
testing the validity of the order of impleadment.
dismissed
With the aforesaid, the petition is .
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
Asheesh
DDiiggiittaallllyy ssiiggnneedd bbyy ::--
AASSHHEEEESSHH KKUUMMAARR
HHiigghh CCoouurrtt ooff JJuuddiiccaattuurree aatt AAllllaahhaabbaadd,,
LLuucckknnooww BBeenncchh