The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to determine the impleading of parties in a suit and the recognition of a necessary and proper party in a dispute.

1. - The petitioner and non petitioner No. 2 are land-lord and tenant respectively. The dispute between them on an amount of arrears, electricity charges, water charges and rent has been pending over a number of years and a number of cues have also pending. The tenant has filed a suit against the land-lord for the restoration of amenities. As a counter to it the land-lord petitioner filed a suit against the R.S.E.B seeking a direction that it should be restrained from giving a new connection to the tenant. In this suit the tenant has applied for being impleaded as party. At the same time an application for being impleaded as party in the application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved. Both these applications have been allowed and the two revision petitions have been preferred against them.

2. First of all it may be stated that order 1 Rule 10 CPC is applicable to suits and parties are added or deleted in a suit and the persons who are parties to the suit automatically become the parties to the several applications which are moved in the suit. It is not necessary that a party should join separately in applications. The application of the tenant for being impleaded as a party to the injunction application was misconceived and it did not require any order impleading him as a party when he was impleaded as a party to the suit.

3. Now it is to be seen whether tenant can be said to be a necessary or proper party to the present dispute. If the petitioner is granted the relief that the RSEB should not issue a fresh connection to the tenant then it is the tenant who is affected by this order and not the RSEB or any other person so as to say that the tenant is not a proper party. The petitioner had joined t is tenant as a party to the suit but subsequently his name was deleted. This also shows that at one stage he also considered it proper to join him as a party.

4. When the relief in the case relates to the granting or refusing of any electricity connection to the non-petitioner No. 2, then it cannot be said that he is not a proper party to the suit. The court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in impleading the non-petitioner No. 2 as a party.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the two suits pending between the parties, one filed by tenant for restoration of his amenities and tie other present one filed for the relief that a new connection should not be given to the non petitioner No. 2 may be amalgamated as it would be proper to get the two suits decided together. Reliance has been placed on Bansal Palace, Sangaria v. Municipal Board, Sangaria (1986 RLW 475) , in which this court directed that the three suits should be decided either by common judgment or by separate judgments pronounced at the same time. Three suits were between different parties, but one common question between them was with regard to the closure of 'nala'. With the object that contradictory orders or decrees may not be passed in the three suits this course has been adopted.

6. From whatever material is before me it does not appear that the subject matter of the two suits is similar or that there is any apprehension of contradictory orders being passed in the two suits. The suit filed by the tenant refers to restoration of amenities which have been disconnected by the order of the court, while the suit of the present petitioner relates to providing of a new connection to the tenant. The decisions of these cases would not depend upon one another. If the earlier decision between the parties can be said to be relevant then the same can be cited before the court where the other matter is pending. Hence the prayer for amalgamating the two cases does not appear to be proper.

7. The revision petition No. 199 of 1988 is dismissed. The revision petition No. 200 of 1988 is accepted as the joining of a party in an application is not necessary when a party has already been joined in a suit.Petition No. 199/98 dismissed and Pet