JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These are connected revision applications in which the same question arises namely, whether the Dargah Committee, Ajmer has been rightly impleaded by the trial court in the two suits out of which these two revision applications arise.

2. Civil Revision No.381 of 1963 arises out of a suit for injunction brought by two Syedzada Khadims against three Syedzada Khadims. These Khadims are entitled to the custody of the keys in their fixed turns by rotation. The plaintiffs and the defendants are amongst he custodians of the keys of the room in which the tomb of Hazrat Khawaja Sahib Moin Uddin Chishti is situated. It is the case of both these parties that they have a right to perform the attendant services, and to receive and enjoy the income accruing therefrom on certain fixed Saturdays. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants interfere with the right of the plaintiffs by not delivering the keys to them when their turn comes and by appropriating the income to which they are entitled. The Dargah Committee filed an application in the above suit for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants are entitled to enjoy any part of the income accruing from the tomb of Hazrat Khawaja Sahib and the Dargah Committee alone is entitled to it by virtue of secs.2 (d) (v) and 14(1) of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act, 1955.

3. Civil Revision No. 94 of 1964 arises out of a suit instituted by a registered society of Syedzada Khadims, and the Receiver appointed by the Civil Judge, in Civil Suit No. 352 of 1944, instituted by one set of Syedzada Khadims against another set. The defendants to the suit are four bawarchis and two thekedars who had taken the theka for the months of January, & December, 1960, from the Receiver. The dispute between the parties is as to whether the Syedzada Khadims are entitled to receive 10 Np. coins put into two degs in the Dargah, or the bawarchis.

4. The Dargah Committee filed an application in this suit also for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that none of the parties to the suit is entitled to the income from the degs, but that it alone is entitled to it under secs.2 (d) (v) and 14(1) of the Dargah Khawaja Sahib Act, 1955.

5. Both the above applications have been allowed by the learned Munsiff before whom the suits are pending.

6. The contention of the applicants in these revision applications is that the dispute which the Dargah Committee wishes to raise is beyond the scope of the suits and the orders impleading it as defendant in the two suits are therefore improper.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this contention is correct. Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. runs, as follows:—

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

The above rule no doubt gives a wide discretion to the Court to implead a party as a defendant, but this discretion has to be exercised in accordance with some well known principles. In Anion vs. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.(l), a note in the Annual Practice, 1955, at Page 232 is reproduced, which is as follows:—

"Generally speaking, intervention can only be insisted upon in three classes of cases, namely: (A) In a representative action where the intervener is one of a class whom plaintiff claims to represent. The intervener may say, I deny that plaintiff represents me add me as a defendant... (B) Where the proprietary rights of the intervener are directly affected by the proceedings. (C) In actions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document