1977 (7) TMI 113 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a joint petition by multiple petitioners under Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.
2. Alleged concealment of material facts by the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Joint Petition:

The primary issue addressed was whether an eight-petitioner joint writ petition is maintainable under Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. The respondents argued that the petition violates Rule 375, which stipulates that an application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action. This rule was emphasized in the Division Bench decision of Chandmal Naurat Mal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1968 Raj 20.

The petitioners relied on Nathmal v. Commissioner Civil Supplies, 1951 Raj LW 467, where a joint petition was allowed because the cases of the two persons were exactly the same. However, this precedent was invalidated by the 1964 amendment to Rule 375. The petitioners also cited Jas Raj v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 WLN 589: (AIR 1977 Raj 150), where a joint petition was allowed due to a common order affecting the petitioners' community of interest.

The court noted that in Chandmal's case, the relief claimed by the petitioners could not be said to be founded on the same cause of action, as similar or identical causes of action do not equate to the same cause of action. Applying this reasoning, the court found that the rights of the petitioners in the present case were different and they were affected in different ways by the impugned orders. Specifically, the interests of Balbir Singh were distinct from those of the other petitioners, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not adversely affected by the impugned order at all. Thus, the petition was deemed a clear case of misjoinder of parties and causes of action, violating Rule 375.

The court concluded that the first objection was valid and upheld it, allowing the petitioners two weeks to decide on whose behalf the writ petition would continue. It was also noted that the objection could not be dismissed on the grounds of delay or lack of initial office objection.

2. Alleged Concealment of Material Facts:

The second issue was whether the petitioners had concealed material facts, specifically the temporary injunction passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, against Sheo Karan and Bhinya Ram on 23-7-1960, and the subsequent dismissal of appeals and revisions against this injunction. The respondents argued that this concealment indicated that the petitioners had not come to the court with clean hands.

The court, however, found that the concealed facts did not have any bearing on the main point of the petition. Therefore, it was not possible to conclude that the petitioners had attempted to mislead the court or had not come with clean hands. Consequently, the second preliminary objection was rejected.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the first preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the joint petition under Rule 375 and allowed the petitioners two weeks to decide on whose behalf the writ petition would continue. The second preliminary objection concerning the alleged concealment of material facts was rejected. The petitioners were given the option to file separate petitions if they wished to do so.