Civil Application (for Joining Party) No. 9415 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 8003 of 2016. Case: Vikramsinh Satubha Sodha Vs Ishwardan Chendan Gadhvi and Ors.. Gujarat High Court
|Case Number:||Civil Application (for Joining Party) No. 9415 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 8003 of 2016|
|Party Name:||Vikramsinh Satubha Sodha Vs Ishwardan Chendan Gadhvi and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: J.V. Vaghela, Advocate and For Respondents: Mehul Sharad Shah, Advocate|
|Judges:||Abhilasha Kumari, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10(2)|
|Judgement Date:||March 23, 2017|
|Court:||Gujarat High Court|
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
Rule. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners), Mr. Vishrut Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for opponents Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Kirit R. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for opponent No. 5. Opponent No. 6 (who is respondent No. 4 in the petition) has been served in the petition but none appears on his behalf, therefore, there is no requirement of issuance of notice of Rule to him in the present application.
This application has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to join him as party respondent in Special Civil Application No. 8003 of 2016, preferred by present opponents Nos. 1 and 2.
It is the case of the applicant that he has made a complaint to the Taluka Development Officer (opponent No. 5) regarding the aspect that the original petitioners are running a Hospital by encroaching upon a portion of Gauchar land. That opponent No. 1 is not a bona fide purchaser as he has misguided the authorities and obtained permission. The Deputy Collector has granted a Certificate without properly verifying documents and has passed an order on 21.08.2009, permitting opponent No. 2 Trust to purchase the land, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. J.V. Vaghela, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is an affected person and any order passed in the petition would affect his rights and cause him prejudice. Therefore, as the applicant is a necessary party, he may be joined as party respondent in the petition.
The application has been strongly opposed by Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners), by submitting that the applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary or affected party. The application is an outcome of political rivalry as the applicant has lost the Taluka Panchayat election against a relative of opponent No. 1. It is submitted that the applicant may have made a complaint to opponent No. 5, but that does not confer locus standi upon him to file the present application. That, the applicant has not placed any material on record to show how he is an affected party or that he is even a proper or necessary party. Hence, as the applicant has no locus standi in the matter, the application may be rejected.
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL