Manoj Kumar Vs. Harish Kumar Tolani

Manoj Kumar vs Harish Kumar Tolani

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 05, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508744

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508744
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: K.K. Lahoti, J.
Decided On: Nov 05, 2003
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 28248/2003
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10(2); Constitution of India - Article - 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar

Advocate A.S. Usmani, Adv.

Respondent

Harish Kumar Tolani

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10(2); Constitution of India - Article - 227
Cases Referred: Kamtaprasad v. Smt. Vidyabai (supra
Reported In: 2004(1)MPHT75

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........relied on judgment of this court in kamtaprasad and anr. v. smt. vidyawati and ors. (1995 jlj 178), particularly paras 11 and 13 of the case.4. to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case. petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against h.k. tolani on the ground that the petitioner is occupying a shop from respondent h.k. tolani on tenancy. h.k. tolani threatened the petitioner for forceable dis-possession from the shop. consequently the suit was filed for declaration that the petitioner is a legal and valid tenant of defendant and permanent injunction be issued against the defendant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.5. from the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration against defendant h.k. tolani that he is landlord of the plaintiff. from the perusal of the pleadings nothing has been averred against ramratan in respect of whom the present applications have been filed.in the plaint petitioner himself admitted that h.k. tolani is landlord of the plaintiff and the same declaration has been sought in the suit itself. merely ramratan has issued some notice to the petitioner, by itself will not give a cause to the petitioner for impleading him as party in the present suit. it is not the case of the petitioner that ramratan is the landlord of the petitioner and is necessary party in the case. merely ramratan who has no concern as per the plaintiff's averment in the suit property even if has issued notices will not be a ground to implead ramratan as defendant in the case. this is not an inter-pleader suit seeking declaration of the petitioner vis-a-vis some persons but in this case the petitioner's suit is for declaration and for restraining the respondent h.k. tholani from forcible dispossession. in the circumstances the trial court has rightly held that for the complete adjudication of the suit.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.K. Lahoti, J.

1. Petitioner aggrieved by order (Annexure P-7) passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 83-A/02, Manoj Kumar v. H.K. Tolani has filed this petition.

2. By the aforesaid order the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Ramratan Mohania as party and also the amendment proposed by the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel submits that for complete adjudication of the case it is necessary to implead Ramratan as party because he is claiming himself to be the landlord of suit shop. Notice have been served by him on the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly filed the aforesaid application for amendment and for impleadment of Ramratan as defendant. Impleadment of Ramratan will avoid multiplicity of the suit and complete adjudication of the dispute will be done in the present suit. In support of his contention, petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in Kamtaprasad and Anr. v. Smt. Vidyawati and Ors. (1995 JLJ 178), particularly Paras 11 and 13 of the case.

4. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against H.K. Tolani on the ground that the petitioner is occupying a shop from respondent H.K. Tolani on tenancy. H.K. Tolani threatened the petitioner for forceable dis-possession from the shop. Consequently the suit was filed for declaration that the petitioner is a legal and valid tenant of defendant and permanent injunction be issued against the defendant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.

5. From the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration against defendant H.K. Tolani that he is landlord of the plaintiff. From the perusal of the pleadings nothing has been averred against Ramratan in respect of whom the present applications have been filed.

In the plaint petitioner himself admitted that H.K. Tolani is landlord of the plaintiff and the same declaration has been sought in the suit itself. Merely Ramratan has issued some notice to the petitioner, by itself will not give a cause to the petitioner for impleading him as party in the present suit. It is not the case of the petitioner that Ramratan is the landlord of the petitioner and is necessary party in the case. Merely Ramratan who has no concern as per the plaintiff's averment in the suit property even if has issued notices will not be a ground to implead Ramratan as defendant in the case. This is not an inter-pleader suit seeking declaration of the petitioner vis-a-vis some persons but in this case the petitioner's suit is for declaration and for restraining the respondent H.K. Tholani from forcible dispossession. In the circumstances the Trial Court has rightly held that for the complete adjudication of the suit presence of Ramratan is not necessary nor he is necessary party in the case. So far as judgment relied on by the petitioner in the case of Kamtaprasad v. Smt. Vidyabai (supra), in Paras 11 and 13 it is held that it is the discretion of the Court to implead any of the party who is interested in the case and ultimate decree which may be passed will affect his right but from the perusal of the pleadings in the present case presence of Ramratan is neither necessary nor he is interested party in the present suit nor petitioner is admitting him as of his landlord. If Ramratan files any suit after issuance of the notices (Annexure P-5), petitioner will be free to contest the aforesaid suit on the available grounds.

6. I do not find any merit in the present petition, consequently it is dismissed, no order with to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Manoj Kumar vs Harish Kumar Tolani Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge K.K. Lahoti, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10(2); C...

Tenancy