Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the Commissioner’s order which rejected the petitioner’s application under Order of the (CPC) to implead the Public Trust as a party to the appeal, a single-judge bench of Nupur Bhati, J., set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed the impleadment of the Public Trust in the appeal pending before the Commissioner.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed an application before Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, seeking approval for registration of the “Shri Khetpal Bavji (Jai Bherunath) Trust” under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950 (the Act). The application for registration of Trust was approved on 29-12-2023.
Aggrieved by the impugned approval, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s decision.
The petitioner, acting as the Management Trustee of the Public Trust, filed an application under Order of the seeking impleadment of the Public Trust as a party to the appeal. This application was rejected by the Commissioner on 11-11-2024, on the grounds that the Public Trust was not fully registered under the Act.
The petitioner challenged the Commissioner’s order dated 11-11-2024 before this Court, seeking relief to quash the impugned order and allow the impleadment of the Public Trust as a party in the pending appeal.
Moot Point
Whether the Public Trust, despite incomplete procedural formalities under Section 21 of the Act, is a necessary and proper party to the appeal?
Whether the rejection of the application for impleadment under Order was legally justified?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner submitted that the Trust, being a juristic entity post-registration under Section 19 of the Act, must be impleaded for proper adjudication. It was contended that the relief sought by the respondents directly affects the Public Trust’s rights and interests. The petitioner placed reliance on Sudhir G. Angur v. M. Sanjeev, and asserted that a necessary party’s exclusion prejudices fair adjudication. It was stated that Sections 19 and 21 of the Act operate in sequence, with Section 21 being procedural. It was contended that absence of entries in the Register under Section 21 does not invalidate the Trust’s registration under Section 19.
However, the respondents’ contended that since the entries under Section 21 of the Act were not made, therefore, the Trust cannot be treated as registered under the Act. The respondents’ cited Section 29 of the Act and argued that the bar against suits by unregistered Trusts extends to impleadment. It was contended that the petitioner, in his individual capacity as Trustee, is already a party to the appeal, rendering additional impleadment unnecessary.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that Section 19 of the Act grants the Trust juristic status, while Section 21 merely formalises its procedural registration. The Court asserted that the registration under Section 19 grants the Trust a juristic identity, irrespective of pending entries under Section 21. The Court noted that the bar under Section 29 of the Act applies only to suits enforcing a Trust’s rights, not to impleadment in appeals challenging its registration.
The Court stated that in the present case the Trust is the entity whose registration is under direct challenge, therefore excluding the Trust would lead to improper representation and potential prejudice. The Court noted that “the petitioner has been made a party in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of the Management Trustee of the Public Trust and if the Public Trust is not impleaded as party respondent in the appeal, then the Public Trust would go unrepresented before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Commissioner, and in case the appeal filed by the respondents is allowed, the rights of the Public Trust would be seriously prejudiced.”
The Court further stated that Order of the empowers Courts to add necessary parties to ensure comprehensive adjudication and held that the Trust qualifies as such a party.
Court’s Decision
The Court set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 11-11-2024 which rejected the petitioner’s impleadment application and directed that the Public Trust is to be impleaded as a party in the pending appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition and all pending applications, if any.
[Ambalal Dhakad v. Asst. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19265/2024, Decided on 09-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Avin Chhangani, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Deelip Kawadia, Counsel for the Respondents
The post appeared first on .