# (Matters under Article 227) Chandrabali Yadav v. Nand Bahadur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1090
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-21
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 5171 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/matters-under-article-227-chandrabali-yadav-v-nand-bahadur-ors-43360
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.P.C.-Order
I
Rule
10-Impleadment
application-suit for permanent prohibitory
injunction-petitioner claimed impleadment
as in PIL-same direction has been issued at
his instance-land in question being Bheeta
certainly Gaon Sabha is necessary partyallowed
by
Trail
Court-set-a-side
by
Revisional Court-held-proper.
Held: Para-14
The
suit
in
question
is
not
a
representative suit. Although, indirectly,
the decision therein may affect the
whole village community, but it does not
mean that any member of the public can
seek his impleadment therein. If this is
permitted, there may be several public
spirited citizens coming forth, seeking
their impleadment. The process would go
on ad infinitum, making it impossible for
the suit to proceed. Concededly, the
petitioner has no personal interest in the
matter. In such view of the matter, this
Court is in full agreement with the view
taken by the revisional court in holding
that the petitioner is not required to be
impleaded in the suit.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2011 SC 1123; 2012 (11) ADJ 404; [2001
(6) SCC 496]; [2015 (109) ALR 680]

## Text

1090
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Law. At this stage there is no occasion to
look into the question, whether the charge
ultimately can be substantiated or not since
that would be a subject matter of trial. No
substantial ground has been made out which
may justify interference by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8.
From perusal of the record, it
cannot be said that the cognizable offence
is not made out against the petitioner. I do
not find any sufficient ground to quash the
charge-sheet as well as the proceedings of
the aforesaid criminal case.
9. However, it is provided that if the
petitioners Barsati, Judawan, Shyam Lal
Harijan and Babu Lal appear or surrender
before the court below within two weeks
from today and moves an application for
bail, the same shall be considered and
disposed of expeditiously in accordance
with law. Till then no coercive steps shall
be taken against the petitioners.
10. With the above observations, the
petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 5171 of 2015
(Matters under Article 227)
Chandrabali Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Nand Bahadur & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, Sri Vijay Bahadur
Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav
C.P.C.-Order
I
Rule
10-Impleadment
application-suit for permanent prohibitory
injunction-petitioner claimed impleadment
as in PIL-same direction has been issued at
his instance-land in question being Bheeta
certainly Gaon Sabha is necessary partyallowed
by
Trail
Court-set-a-side
by
Revisional Court-held-proper.
Held: Para-14
The
suit
in
question
is
not
a
representative suit. Although, indirectly,
the decision therein may affect the
whole village community, but it does not
mean that any member of the public can
seek his impleadment therein. If this is
permitted, there may be several public
spirited citizens coming forth, seeking
their impleadment. The process would go
on ad infinitum, making it impossible for
the suit to proceed. Concededly, the
petitioner has no personal interest in the
matter. In such view of the matter, this
Court is in full agreement with the view
taken by the revisional court in holding
that the petitioner is not required to be
impleaded in the suit.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2011 SC 1123; 2012 (11) ADJ 404; [2001
(6) SCC 496]; [2015 (109) ALR 680]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)
1.
The petitioner has assailed the
validity of the order dated 19.8.2015 passed
by Additional District Judge/Special Judge,
EC Act, Jaunpur in Civil Revision No. 176
of 2013, whereby the revision has been
allowed and the order of the trial court dated
4.9.2013 permitting impleadment of the
petitioner as a party defendant in Original
Suit No. 168 of 2008, has been set aside.
2. The plaintiff-respondents have
instituted Original Suit No. 168 of 2008
against the the defendant-respondents for
3 All]
Chandrabali Yadav Vs. Nand Bahadur & Ors.
1091
permanent
prohibitory
injunction
restraining contesting defendants no. 1 to
4 from interfering in the possession of the
plaintiffs and proforma defendants and
their constructions existing over the suit
property. The suit property has been
shown with letters A, B, C, D, E, F, A in
the plaint map and according to the
plaintiff-respondents, its new number is
52, measuring 0.80 decimals. The plaint
case is that the suit property had vested in
the plaintiff-respondents under Section 9
of U.P. Act No. 1 of 19511.
3.
In the suit, the State of U.P.
through Collector, Jaunpur, Collector
Jaunpur and Gram Panchayat, Brahmanpur
and one Rajmani Yadav have been arrayed
as contesting defendants. The State of U.P.
and the Collector, Jaunpur have filed a
written
statement
on
22.10.2010,
contending that the suit property belongs to
the State Government and the Gram
Panchayat and is recorded as 'Bheeta' in
the revenue records. The claim of the
plaintiff-respondents that the suit property
had vested in them, was thus categorically
denied.
4. During the pendency of the suit,
the petitioner, who claims himself to be
an Ex-Pradhan of the Village, filed an
application seeking his impleadment in
the proceedings. In the application, it was
stated that the petitioner had filed writ
petition no. 40811 of 2008 in the shape of
a Public Interest Litigation before this
Court and wherein, he was given liberty
to make a representation before the SubDivisional Magistrate and the SubDivisional Magistrate was required to
examine the matter and take appropriate
decision. It was pointed out that in
pursuance of the liberty granted by this
Court,
the
petitioner
had
moved
representation before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
but
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, by order dated 3.12.2008,
expressed his inability to take any decision in
the matter, unless the interim order granted in
Original Suit No. 168 of 2008 preferred by
the plaintiff-respondents, is in existence. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate in its order has
observed that it shall be open to the petitioner
to file the order of this Court in the suit
proceedings, so that the stay order passed in
the suit is vacated. It was on the strength of
the said order that the petitioner sought his
impleadment in the suit proceedings.
5. The application was opposed, but
the trial court, by order dated 4.9.2013,
allowed the impleadment of the petitioner
as a party defendant to the suit by
observing that unless the petitioner is
impleaded in the suit, the true spirit of the
order passed by this Court would not be
achieved.
6. It seems that after the passing of
the order by the trial court dated 4.9.2013,
the petitioner preferred another Public
Interest Litigation No. 13236 of 2014
before this Court in respect of the same
cause of action i.e. his grievance
regarding unauthorised possession of plot
no. 52 by the private respondents. The
aforesaid petition was disposed of by
order dated 4.3.2014, by a division Bench,
placing reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and
others2 and on an order passed in Public
Interest Litigation in the case of Prem
Singh Vs State of U.P. and others3.
Liberty was granted to the petitioner to
approach the concerned respondents with
a certified copy of the order so that the
appropriate inquiry can be initiated and
action taken in accordance with law.
1092
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. The plaintiff-respondents in Original
Suit No. 168 of 2008, being aggrieved by the
order of the trial court dated 4.9.2013
allowing impleadment of the petitioner in the
suit, preferred a revision, which has been
allowed by impugned order dated 19.8.2015.
The revisional court has held that even
assuming that the suit land is Bheeta land, as
is also the case set up by the state respondent
in the suit, the petitioner, who claims himself
to be an Ex-Pradhan, is neither a necessary
nor a proper party to the litigation. It has
been observed that the main contesting party
in the suit are the State Government through
Collector as well as Gram Sabha, both of
whom have duly filed their written statement
and are contesting the proceedings. It has
further been observed that Gaon Sabha
which is the custodian of the land reserved
for public purposes is taking all interest in the
suit and is contesting the proceedings. The
revisional court further noted that in the order
of this Hon'ble Court passed in the Public
Interest Litigation, there was no direction to
implead the petitioner as a party defendant. It
has been observed that since the petitioner is
neither a necessary nor a proper party for
deciding the issues involved in the suit and as
such, his presence is not necessary and
accordingly, the order passed by the trial
court has been set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
placing reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal
Tiwari Vs Kamala Devi & Others4,
submitted that bhumidhari rights can not
accrue in favour of a person in respect of
a land covered by Section 132 of the Act,
even if he is in possession thereof. It is
urged that in such circumstances, the
petitioner, who is Ex-Pradhan and had
approached this Court twice by way of the
Public Interest Litigation is entitled to be
heard in the suit. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance on a
recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
the
case
of
Balu
Ram
Vs.
P.
Chellathangam and others5.
9. The basic issue before the Court
is whether the petitioner, who is an ExPradhan, is a necessary and a proper party
to be impleaded as a party defendant to
Original Suit No. 168 of 2008.
10. Indisputably, in case the suit land is
Bheeta land, then in view of the provisions of
Section 132 of the Act, bhumidhari rights
can not accrue in respect thereof in favour of
any person. The question whether the suit
land is Bheeta land or not and whether it
could vest in favour of the plaintiffrespondents are to be decided in the presence
of the State of U.P., the Collector and the
Gram Sabha. This is in view of the fact that
such land vests in the State and remains
under the management of Gaon Sabha. Thus,
it can not be disputed that the only necessary
parties to the suit are the State of U.P.,
Collector, Jaunpur and the Gram Sabha.
11.
The law in respect of Public
Interest Litigation is not circumscribed by the
technicalities of the Civil Procedure Code.
Any person, raising an issue of public
importance can approach a court for setting
the law in motion, so long as the petition is
not motivated or based on malafide
considerations. Thus, the petitioner in his
capacity as an Ex-Pradhan had approached
this Court twice by way of Public Interest
Litigation, complaining that the private
respondents are in possession of the Bheeta
land and no action had been taken by the
State respondents to dispossess the private
respondent therefrom. Undoubtedly, Public
Interest Litigation at his instance, being a
member of the Gaon Sabha and an ExPradhan,
was
maintainable
and
was
3 All]
Chandrabali Yadav Vs. Nand Bahadur & Ors.
1093
entertained by this Court. The fact that the
Public Interest Litigations, at his instance,
were entertained by this Court, however, is
not sufficient to make the petitioner a
necessary or a proper party to the suit
instituted
by
the
plaintiff-respondents
wherein, as observed above, the State of
U.P., Collector Jaunpur and the Gram
Panchayat
are
already
contesting
the
proceedings. For becoming a party to a suit,
governed by the provisions of Civil
Procedure Code, one has to meet the test
prescribed by Order 1, rule 10 CPC.
12. By virtue of the order of this
Court dated 14.9.2015, the records of
Public Interest Litigation No. 13236 of
2014 have been placed before this Court.
A perusal thereof reveals that in the said
petition, the petitioner had not disclosed
about filing of the earlier Public Interest
Litigation by him, being Civil Misc Writ
Petition No.40811 of 2008. The petitioner
had also suppressed the fact about
pendency of the civil suit and regarding
an injunction order operating therein.
13. In the opinion of the Court, these
facts were essential to be disclosed in the
second Public Interest Litigation No. 13237
of 2014, which the petitioner had filed before
this Court. Even the filing of the earlier
petition by him, was not disclosed. Rather,
the petition was filed by making an incorrect
declaration that it was the first petition on his
behalf for the relief claimed therein. It was
on the basis of the pleadings made in the said
petition that this Court disposed of the
petition by order dated 4.3.2014 granting
liberty to the petitioner to move before the
Appropriate Authority.
14. The suit in question is not a
representative suit. Although, indirectly,
the decision therein may affect the whole
village community, but it does not mean
that any member of the public can seek
his impleadment therein. If this is
permitted, there may be several public
spirited citizens coming forth, seeking
their impleadment. The process would go
on ad infinitum, making it impossible for
the suit to proceed. Concededly, the
petitioner has no personal interest in the
matter. In such view of the matter, this
Court is in full agreement with the view
taken by the revisional court in holding
that the petitioner is not required to be
impleaded in the suit.
15. In the case of Balu Ram (Supra),
an agreement for sale was allegedly executed
by a trust. In a suit for specific performance
for enforcement of the agreement for sale,
one Balu Ram applied for impleadment as a
party defendant, which was allowed by the
trial court, but the order passed by the trial
court was set aside in revision. The Supreme
Court held that the petitioner before it, is not
alien to the subject matter of litigation, as he
is a beneficiary of the trust and thus, if the
sale is made at a throw away price, his
interest
would
be
adversely
affected.
However, it is not in dispute in the instant
matter, that the petitioner does not have any
personal interest in the litigation. Twice, he
had moved this Court claiming himself to be
a public spirited citizen and not for redressal
of any personal cause. The State-respondents
are already contesting the proceedings.
16. In such view of the matter, the
revisional court was fully justified in
setting aside the order passed by the trial
court permitting impleadment of the
petitioner.
17. In view of above discussion, this
Court does not find any illegality in the
impugned order passed by revisional
1094
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court so as to warrant interference in
exercise of supervisory power under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
18. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 5224 of 2015
(Matter under Article 227)
Musheer Alam
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P. Srivastava, Sri Rakesh Pande
Counsel for the Respondents:
Jokhan Prasad
C.P.C. Section-47-Execution of Decree-suit
for
declaration
of
entitlement
of
possession-judgment debts objected-being
declaratory decree-can not be executedjudgment
debtor-being
tenant
-notice
validity terminated-concurrent finding not
entitle to remain in possession-execution
court rightly rejected-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-11
The decision cited, would not apply to
the facts of the instant case, which as
noted above, are clearly distinguishable.
The specious argument made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is,
thus, not acceptable. The petition lacks
merit and is dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
2013 All. C.J. 739
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)
1. The petitioner, who is a judgment
debtor in Original Suit No.21 of 1985,
preferred objections under Section 47
C.P.C. against execution of the decree,
inter alia, on the ground that the decree
passed by the trial court is declaratory in
nature and is incapable of being executed.
2. The objection filed by the
petitioner was rejected by the executing
court by an order dated 8.4.2015 and the
revision filed against the said order has
also been dismissed by order dated
31.8.2015.
These
orders
are
under
challenge in the instant petition.
3. The only submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the decree passed in the suit is a
declaratory decree, thus incapable of
being executed by delivering actual
physical possession to the plaintiffs as
sought for in the execution proceedings.
4.
The suit in question was instituted
by the plaintiff-respondents for grant of a
decree of possession in respect of House
No.719, Ward No.6, Mohalla Malitola,
Gandhi Nagar, Basti. Arrears of rent to the
extent of Rs.1800 for the period September,
1983 to February, 1984 and mesne profits
and damages were also claimed. According
to the plaint assertions, the petitioner, who is
defendant therein, was tenant of the demised
premises on a rent of Rs.300 per month, on
behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. The
provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not
applicable, as the demised premises is a
construction of the year 1980 and 10 years
have not passed since the date of its
construction. The tenancy of the petitioner
was allegedly terminated by a notice dated
24.1.1984 but when he failed to vacate
within a period of one month, the suit in
question
was
instituted.