# Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1164
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 24958 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vijay Prakash Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arjun-singh-bhadoriya-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42361
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section-482-quashing of Criminal
Proceeding-offense under Section 498-A
I.P.C.-readwith 3⁄4 D.P. Act-on ground as
per version of FIR-incident took place at
Jaipur-where
F.I.R.
was
lodged
by
daughter
of
complainant-during
investigation
all
allegation
found
baseless-present
FIR
by
father
of
complainant
for
same
incident
at
Mainpuri-allegation of demand of Dowry
and "MARPIT' took place at Jaipur-non of
alleged misdeed committed at MainpuriCourt at Mainpuri has no jurisdictionentire proceeding quashed-being abuse
of process.

Held: Para 20

In view of the aforesaid consideration, in
my opinion, the Court at Mainpuri has no
jurisdiction to enquire into or try the
offences which are alleged to have
committed at Jaipur. Moreover, the FIR
had already been lodged by Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya at Jaipur regarding torture, illtreatment and demand of dowry against
the applicants, in which final report has
3 All] Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others V. State of U.P. and another
1165
been submitted by the police after
investigation and the notices have been
issued
to
her
by
the
concerned
Magistrate and the matter is still pending
there. Hence, the proceedings before the
Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri are nothing but
an abuse of process of the court, which
are liable to be quashed and this
application is liable to be allowed.
Case Law discussed:
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 336; 2004
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 2134

## Text

1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

11. Thus, in view of the above
settled proposition of law, I am of the
view that the labour court could not have
been
awarded
back
wages
to
the
respondent no. 2, workman in absence of
any pleading on the part of the workman
that he was not gainfully employed
anywhere after the termination of his
service on 31.07.1991. Moreover, the
provisions of Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act) do not find place in the U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
and
therefore, applying the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of
U.P.S.R.T.C. Versus Surendra Singh
(supra), direction no. 3 in the interim
order also could not have been given.

12. Since, the provisions of Section
17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act) do not find any place or
mention in the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and no such direction no. 3 for
paying wages under Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could have
been given, therefore, the modification
application stands allowed in terms of the
observations made herein above.

13. In view of the above stated
position, this writ petition is, therefore,
allowed. The impugned award dated
27.03.1997 as published on 04.10.1997 is
quashed.

14. No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 24958 of
2007

Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N.Sharma
Sri A.K.Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Sri Alkesh Singh Chauhan
Sri Suneel Kr. Dubey

Cr.P.C.-Section-482-quashing of Criminal
Proceeding-offense under Section 498-A
I.P.C.-readwith 3⁄4 D.P. Act-on ground as
per version of FIR-incident took place at
Jaipur-where
F.I.R.
was
lodged
by
daughter
of
complainant-during
investigation
all
allegation
found
baseless-present
FIR
by
father
of
complainant
for
same
incident
at
Mainpuri-allegation of demand of Dowry
and "MARPIT' took place at Jaipur-non of
alleged misdeed committed at MainpuriCourt at Mainpuri has no jurisdictionentire proceeding quashed-being abuse
of process.

Held: Para 20

In view of the aforesaid consideration, in
my opinion, the Court at Mainpuri has no
jurisdiction to enquire into or try the
offences which are alleged to have
committed at Jaipur. Moreover, the FIR
had already been lodged by Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya at Jaipur regarding torture, illtreatment and demand of dowry against
the applicants, in which final report has
3 All] Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others V. State of U.P. and another
1165
been submitted by the police after
investigation and the notices have been
issued
to
her
by
the
concerned
Magistrate and the matter is still pending
there. Hence, the proceedings before the
Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri are nothing but
an abuse of process of the court, which
are liable to be quashed and this
application is liable to be allowed.
Case Law discussed:
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 336; 2004
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 2134

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.)

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and
three Others with the prayer to quash the
charge sheet dated 10.3.2006 filed in Case
Crime No. C-15 of 2006, under Sections
498-A, I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali
Mainpuri and the summoning order dated
26.7.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mainpuri and the entire
proceeding in case no. 1218 of 2006 State
Vs. Dinesh Bhadoriya and Others under
Sections 498-A I.P.C. and D.P. Act,
Police
Station-
Kotwali,
District-
Mainpuri pending in the Court of C.J.M.,
Mainpuri.

2. The facts of the case are that
opposite party no.2, Ram Prakash Singh
Chauhan filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M.,
Mainpuri against Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya
and four others with the allegations that
her daughter Alka was married with
Dinesh Bhadoriya, resident of 82, Krishna
Nagar Officers Enclave, Jhotwada, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) on 9.2.2004. In the marriage
sufficient gifts and dowry were given but
the accused persons were not satisfied
with the said dowry and started to demand
a Maruti Car and when the complainant
went to Jaipur to take her, they clearly
told him that unless Maruti Car is
provided, his daughter will not be sent
with him. It is further alleged that due to
non fulfillment of their said demand, the
accused persons used to commit mar-peet
with his daughter about which she
complained
to
him
on
telephone.
Thereafter, the complainant alongwith
others went to Jaipur and tried to subside
the matter and assured the accused
persons that he will fulfill their demand
after arranging the money. He also took a
loan of Rs. two lakhs and paid the same to
Dinesh Singh (husband) for his business
purposes but thereafter, seeing that his
demands are not being fulfilled and
inspite
of
assurance
given
by
complainant, Dinesh Singh and his family
members started to harass the victim
again. In the meantime, a daughter was
born to Alka and on 27.11.2005, the
accused sent her only in the clothes she
was wearing to Mainpuri and since then
she
has
been
residing
with
the
complainant at Mainpuri. Thereafter,
Dinesh Singh also told him on telephone
that unless a Maruti Car is provided, he is
not ready to keep his daughter.

3. The said application of the
complainant was directed to be registered
as FIR and hence an FIR was registered as
case Crime No. C-15 of 2006 at P.S.-
Kotwali, Mainpuri on 9.2.2006, under
Sections 498-A IPC and D.P. Act. The
said FIR was investigated by the police of
Kotwali Mainpuri and after investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted charge
sheet against the applicants and Dinesh
Singh Bhadoriya, husband of the victim.
On the said charge sheet the learned
C.J.M. took cognizance and summoned
the accused persons.
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

4. Hence, the present petition has
been filed to quash the said charge sheet,
summoning
order
and
the
entire
proceeding of the aforesaid case.

5. In the petition filed on behalf of
the applicants, it has been averred that
applicant
no.1 is
the
father-in-law,
applicant no.2 is mother-in-law, applicant
no.3 is Devar of Smt. Alka and applicant
no.4 is an extremely old man aged about
70 years, retired from service, who is
living in a separate house about 10 k.ms.
away. The marriage of Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya
and
Dinesh
Singh
was
solemnized on 9.2.2004 without any
dowry. After marriage Dinesh Singh
Bhadoriya was keeping his wife Smt.
Alka with full love and affection but
immediately after marriage Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya
started
pressurizing
her
husband to live separately and she did not
participate in daily domestic work with
her mother-in-law. In such circumstance,
the applicant no.1 and 2 decided for a
family partition between them and their
sons and accordingly family partition was
made, in which it was agreed that Dinesh
Singh Bhadoriya, husband of Smt. Alka
will be owner and in possession of a shop
known as Bhadoriya Paint House situated
in Khatipura Circle-Ke-Pas, Chhota Bara
Road, Jaipur. Accordingly Smt. Saroj
Bhadoriya (applicant no.2), executed a
registered gift-deed on 9.9.2004 in favour
of his son Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya in
respect of the shop, which was registered
by
Sub-Registrar.
Thereafter,
the
applicant no.1 and 2 also returned to Smt.
Alka her entire Stridhan and domestic
articles for which Smt. Alka also executed
a deed receiving the Stridhan and the
articles given at the time of marriage by
her father and this deed was also duly
signed as witness by her father Sri Ram
Prakash Singh Chauhan (complainant). It
is also stated that since 9.9.2004, Dinesh
Singh Bhadoriya and his wife Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya have been residing separately
in a house situated in Mohalla Habib
Marg Moti Nagar, Jaipur. The applicant
No.1 on 10.9.2004 had got a public notice
published in daily newspaper "Rajasthan
Patrika" informing that all the relations
with his son Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and
his wife came to an end and they have
been evicted from House no. 82, Krishna
Colony Officers Enclave Jhotbara Jaipur,
(Rajasthan). Subsequently, Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya got executed a sale-deed in
respect of the said shop in her favour by
her husband on 15.9.2004. Thereafter, on
11.1.2005, Smt Alka in order to extract
money from the applicant no.1 and 2,
filed an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Civil
Judge (Jr.Div.) / Judicial Magistrate Court
No.13, Jaipur praying to direct the
concerned S.O. of Police Station to lodge
an FIR against the applicants for
demanding dowry and harassment. On
11.1.2005, learned Magistrate directed the
S.O. concerned to submit report and
investigate the matter and thereafter on
15.1.2005 an FIR was lodged against the
applicants at P.S. Mahila Thana North,
Jaipur, which was registered as Crime No.
6 of 2005, under Sections 498-A, 406
IPC. The concerned Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of Smt. Alka and
other witnesses under Sectioin 161 of
Cr.P.C.
and
after
investigation,
he
submitted a final report in the said case on
which the A.C.J.M. Court No. 13, Jaipur
issued notice to Smt. Alka but till date she
has not appeared in the Court. Thereafter,
on 19.1.2006, father of Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya filed an application under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
against
the
applicants and Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya in
3 All] Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others V. State of U.P. and another
1167
the Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri on false
and vague allegations in respect of the
same occurrence alleged to be committed
in Jaipur (Rajasthan), on which an FIR
was directed to be registered and
thereafter investigation was made and
charge sheet was submitted by the police
before C.J.M., Mainpuri (which is subject
matter of the present petition).

6. In counter affidavit filed on behalf
of opposite party no.2, several facts about
marriage of Alka Bhadoriya with Dinesh
Singh Bhadoriya and relations of the
applicants with her have been admitted
while several other facts have been
denied. The filing of application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya on 11.1.2005 in the Court of
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) / Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 13, Jaipur and
order of the Court, directing the Station
Officer concerned to submit the report
and investigate the matter, investigation
of the matter by Investigating Officer
after registering the case under Section
498-A, 406 IPC and thereafter submitting
of the final report, all these facts have not
been denied and it is stated that she (Smt.
Alka Bhadoriya) has not received any
notice issued by the Jaipur Court against
the said final report submitted in the case
lodged by her.

7. In counter affidavit, it is also
stated that the demand of Rs. 50,000/-
was made by the applicants from Alka
Bhadoriya
and
she
was
tortured
physically and mentally. It is also stated
that another FIR has been lodged for
another incident, hence, it was not barred
by law. It is also stated that even before
their marriage when the applicants came
to the complainant's house at Mainpuri in
Goad-bharai (engagement) ceremony, a
Maruti Car was demanded as an essential
requirement for marriage and in the
marriage, the said demand was repeated
and as such the Court at Mainpuri has
jurisdiction to pass order and take
cognizance against the applicants.

8. In rejoinder affidavit, the contents
of the petition have been reiterated.

9. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Alkesh
Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the
applicants has submitted that Smt. Alka
Bhadoriya daughter of the complainant
Ram Prakash Chauhan (opposite party
no.2) had already filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
concerned
Magistrate
at
Jaipur
(Rajasthan) against the applicants for
demand of dowry, torture and harassment,
in which after investigation, a final report
was submitted by the Investigating
Officer and now the present FIR got
lodged by her father Ram Prakash
Chauhan (opposite party no.2) at Police
Station- Kotwali, Mainpuri (U.P.) on
similar facts and regarding the incidents
alleged to have taken place at Jaipur is not
maintainable
and
the
order
taking
cognizance by C.J.M., Mainpuri on the
charge sheet submitted by police after
investigation is without jurisdiction as
regarding the incident alleged to have
taken place at Jaipur (Rajasthan), the
Court of CJM at Mainpuri (U.P.) has no
jurisdiction to enquire into or try the said
offences alleged to have committed at
Jaipur. He placed reliance upon a verdict
of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007)
1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 336
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
MANISH RATAN AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER and
another verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 2134 Y. ABRAHAM AJITH AND
OTHERS
VS.
INSPECTOR
OF
POLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER.

11. On the other hand learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted that an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the
complainant- opposite party no.2 before
the C.J.M., Mainpuri, regarding another
incident, hence, it was not barred by law.
It is also argued that demand of dowry
was a continuing offence and in relation
to
said
demand,
daughter
of
the
complainant was tortured and harassed,
hence, Mainpuri Court has jurisdiction as
she was turned out of the house and was
residing in Mainpuri alongwith her
parents. He also submitted that at the time
of marriage itself, the demand of Maruti
Car was made, which took place at
Mainpuri. Hence, the Court at Mainpuri
has jurisdiction to try the same.

12. I have considered the said
arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties' counsel and case laws as referred
to above by the learned counsel for the
applicants.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its
verdict given in MANISH RATAN AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND
ANOTHER (supra) has held that offence
cannot be said to be continuing one only
because complainant was forced to leave
her matrimonial home and stayed with her
parents. In the said matter the facts were
that the father of the victim got lodged a
complaint with police at Jabalpur alleging
that the appellants have been ill-treating
his daughter and demanding dowry.
Subsequently the victim also got lodged
an FIR alleging that her husband and inlaws ill-treated her so much that she had
to leave the matrimonial home and went
to live with her parents at Datia. It was
held that in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C.,
which ordains that offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed, the offence in question must
be inquired into and tried by Court at
Jabalpur and not by Court at Datia where
no part of cause of action arose.

14.

In
another
verdict
Y.
ABRAHAM AJITH AND OTHERS VS.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI
AND ANOTHER (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has been pleased to held that
every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed.
However, the said rule is subject to
several exceptions but no such exception
is applicable to the case at hand. It was
held that the Magistrate concerned had no
jurisdiction to deal with matter as no part
of cause of action for initiation of
proceeding against the accused arose
within his local jurisdiction. The facts of
the said case were that complaint was
filed under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C.
and Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961 against
husband and his relations by the wife at
Chennai where she came to stay after
leaving her husband's house which was
situated in Nagercoil, wherein all the
offences were alleged to have taken place
at Nagercoil. It was observed that the said
offences are not continuing ones. No part
of cause of action arose at Chennai.
Considering Sections 177 and 178 of
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate at Chennai had no
3 All] Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and others V. State of U.P. and another
1169
jurisdiction to deal with the matter and
proceedings were therefore quashed.

15. Now coming to the facts of the
present case, admittedly the FIR was
earlier
got
lodged
by
Smt.
Alka
Bhadoriya daughter of opposite party no.2
against the applicants and two others,
excluding her husband Dinesh Singh
Bhadoriya, which was registered as case
crime No. 6 of 2005 on 15.1.2005, under
Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, with the
allegations that her marriage took place
on 9.2.2004 with Sri Dinesh Bhadoriya
son of applicant no.1 and 2, in which huge
amount was given as dowry but when she
came for the first time to Jaipur as newly
bride, the accused no. 1 and 2 started
torturing and misbehaving with her for
bringing less dowry and when after one
month she was going to her parent's
house, she was allowed to go on the
condition that she will be kept only if she
brings Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. It was also
alleged that the accused No.1 had also
tried to outrage her modesty but she did
not lodge the report for the same when he
tendered a written apology. It is also
alleged that certain articles including her
jewelery were taken away by the accused
persons and the same are in their
possession. It is also alleged that
ultimately on 9.9.2004, the complainant
(Smt. Alka) and her husband were thrown
out from the house and her entire Stridhan
has been forcibly kept detained by the
accused persons. Thereafter, she went to
Moti Nagar Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, where
she is residing in the house of her uncle
Rajpal Singh since 9.9.2004. It is also
alleged that on 12.12.2004, the accused
persons came there and committed marpeet with her, abused her and again
demanded dowry.

16. The said matter was investigated
by the police of police Station Mahila
Thana, Uttar Jaipur City and after
investigation,
a
final
report
dated
15.2.2005 was submitted stating therein
that the entire allegations were found to
be incorrect as the complainant (Smt.
Alka Bhadoriya) wanted to live with her
husband separately from her in-laws. Her
husband Dinesh Bhadoriya was also
owner of a firm named Paint House but as
he was not doing any labour, hence, could
not earn income from the said shop and
consequently he asked his father for
money and when his father refused to do
so, he put the complainant ahead in the
picture and in the garb of the dowry case,
he started to blackmail his father.

17. Now the FIR has been got
lodged by opposite party no.2 Ram
Prakash Singh Chauhan, father of Smt.
Alka Bhadoriya, which was registered as
Case Crime No. C-15 of 2006 on 9.2.2006
at P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri against the
applicants and Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya,
husband of Smt. Alka Bhadoriya. In this
FIR,
it
has
been
alleged
by
the
complainant that marriage of his daughter
Alka
was
solemnized
with
Dinesh
Bhadoriya, resident of Jaipur (Rajasthan)
on 9.2.2004, but after marriage Dinesh
Singh Bhadoriya and his family members
were not satisfied with the gifts and
dowry and started demanding a Maruti
Car and when the complainant went to
take his daughter from Jaipur, they clearly
told him that unless Maruti Car is
provided, they will not send his daughter.
Thereafter, they started committing marpeet in pursuance to their demand of
dowry, which was informed him by his
daughter on telephone. Thereafter, the
complainant went to Jaipur and tried to
subside the matter with Dinesh Singh and
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
others and assured them that he will fulfill
their demand and also took a loan of Rs. 2
lakhs and provided it to Dinesh Singh for
doing business, but thereafter they again
started to repeat their said demand and
ultimately on 27.11.2005 Alka (daughter
of the complainant) was sent to Mainpuri
in the clothes that she was wearing and
since then she is residing at Mainpuri.

18. On perusal of the entire
allegations made in the aforesaid FIR, it is
apparent that none of the incidents as
alleged in the said FIR have taken place at
Mainpuri and all the alleged incidents of
demand of dowry, committing mar-peet
etc. are said to have taken place at Jaipur
and
the
only
date
mentioned
is
27.11.2005, on which date it is alleged
that the daughter of the complainant was
sent to Mainpuri in the clothes that she
was wearing and since then she is residing
at Mainpuri.

19. Considering the entire contents
as stated in the FIR, even if is taken as it
is, none of the incident is alleged to have
taken place at Mainpuri. Moreover, Smt.
Alka, daughter of the complainantopposite party no.2 had already got an
FIR
lodged
against
the
applicants,
excluding her husband Dinesh Kumar
Bhadoriya,
at
Jaipur
and
after
investigation in the matter, a final report
was submitted before the concerned
Magistrate in which notices were also
issued to her. Now with almost similar
facts the present FIR has been got lodged
at P.S. Kotwali, Mainpuri including one
additional incident said to have taken
place on 27.11.2005 about which it is
alleged that on that date Smt. Alka was
sent to Mainpuri by the applicants only in
the clothes that she was wearing and since
then she is residing at Mainpuri. Thus,
from the said allegation, it cannot be said
that the incident had taken place at
Mainpuri or it was a continuing offence as
has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in
its verdict MANISH RATAN AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND
ANOTHER (supra).

20. In view of the aforesaid
consideration, in my opinion, the Court at
Mainpuri has no jurisdiction to enquire
into or try the offences which are alleged
to have committed at Jaipur. Moreover,
the FIR had already been lodged by Smt.
Alka Bhadoriya at Jaipur regarding
torture, ill-treatment and demand of
dowry against the applicants, in which
final report has been submitted by the
police after investigation and the notices
have been issued to her by the concerned
Magistrate and the matter is still pending
there. Hence, the proceedings before the
Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri are nothing but
an abuse of process of the court, which
are liable to be quashed and this
application is liable to be allowed.

21. Accordingly, this application is
allowed and further proceedings in
pursuance of the charge sheet dated
10.3.2006 submitted in Case Crime No.
C-15 of 2005, under Section 498-A, I.P.C.
and D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri and
summoning order dated 26.7.2006 passed
by
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Mainpuri and the entire proceedings in
case no. 1218 of 2006 State Vs. Dinesh
Bhadoriya and Others under Section 498A I.P.C. and D.P. Act pending before
C.J.M., Mainpuri are hereby quashed.
However, the complainant-opposite party
no.2 may redress his grievance, if he so
chooses, before appropriate Court.
---------
3 All] Kishan Lal V. State of U.P. and another
1171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30085 of 2006

Kishan Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order1 Rule 10impleadment application-suit for specific
performance-during pendnecy of suit
petitioner
purchased
the
disputed
property-held-Transferee
is
necessary
and proper property.

Held: Para 3

If Ganga Ram had transferred the
property to the petitioner before filing of
the suit then it would have been
necessary for the plaintiffs to implead
the petitioner as subsequent purchaser.
Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the
property during pendency of the suit he
could
very
well
apply
for
his
impleadment as subsequent purchaser.
The lower revisional court has wrongly
distinguished
the
authority
of
the
Supreme Court reported in Amit Kumar
Shaw and Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and
Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2209 : (2005) 11 SCC
403 : 2005 (2) ARC 174. It has been held
in the said authority that if during
pendency
of
the
suit
interest
is
transferred
then
transferee
is
a
necessary or at least proper party as it is
a case of assignment.
Case law Discussed:
AIR 2005 SC 2209: (2005) 11 SCC 403: 2005
(2) ARC 174.
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. List revised. No one appears for the
respondents. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Respondents No.2 & 3 and one
Keshav since deceased and survived by
respondents No.4 to 7 have filed a suit for
specific performance against respondent
No.8, Ganga Ram in the form of O.S.
No.437 of 1997 for specific performance of
a registered agreement for sale alleged to
have been executed by Ganga Ram
defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on
31.10.1991. During pendency of the suit,
petitioner filed an impleadment application
stating therein that through registered sale
deed dated 23.08.1999 (during pendency of
suit) he had purchased the property in
dispute from Ganga Ram. The impleadment
application was opposed by the plaintiffs.
Trial Court/ Civil Judge, Junior Divison,
Jhansi rejected the impleadment application
on 18.08.2004. Against the said order
petitioner filed Civil Revision No.153 of
2004, which was dismissed by A.D.J./
Special
Judge,
(DAA),
Jhansi
on
22.04.2006, hence this writ petition.

3. The courts below rejected the
application placing reliance upon certain
authorities according to which a rival
claimant to the ownership is not a necessary
or proper party in a suit for specific
performance. However, in the present case,
the situation is different. Petitioner did not
claim that at the time of execution of the
agreement he was the owner and Ganga
Ram was not the owner. Petitioner's case is
that during pendency of the suit Ganga
Ram, the defendant had transferred the
property to him. If Ganga Ram had
transferred the property to the petitioner
before filing of the suit then it would have