Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., allowed the petition which challenged the order of the trial court whereunder the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the wife of Defendant 1 was rejected.

The facts of the case were that the plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted the suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession impleading the wife of the defendant as Defendant 2.

The contention of Mr A.P. Bose, Advocate for the petitioners, was that a part of the suit land had been alienated to the wife of the defendant. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs after the written statement was filed. The hearing of the suit had not begun. The intervenor was a necessary party to the suit.

The counsel for defendants Mr S. Udgata, submitted that the written statement was filed in the year 2011. But then, the petition for impleadment was filed after a gap of five years. The intervenor was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit.

The Court relied on the case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886, wherein the Apex Court had held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property. The suit scheduled land had been alienated to the wife of the defendant. In view of the same, the intervenor was a necessary party to the suit thus the petition was allowed. [Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. Ranjit Kumar Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 436, decided on 19-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. wherein extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked.

Petitioner had invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court in order to seek issuance of directions to respondent not to forcibly and illegally interfere with the peaceful possession of the land. The land was alleged to be under the ownership of the petitioner. Petitioner, in addition to the above, sought directions praying for restraining the respondent from making changes in the revenue record and to restore possession of 2 marlas of land. Whereas the respondent submitted that the civil proceedings that had already initiated were in respect of the same land which the petitioner seeks directions for in this writ petition.

The High Court after perusing the submissions of both the parties observed that the petitioner himself brought to notice of the Court that a suit had been instituted praying for permanent injunction in respect of the land restraining gram panchayat and others from digging in the land and to change the nature of the agricultural land. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere in the instant writ petition. [Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1693, dated 02-11-2018]