KUDAL, J.—This revision petition under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar dated 22nd April, 1975, whereby he allowed an application of the respondent No. 4 Prabhatilal under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, and ordered that he be impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that Murlidhar plaintiff filed a suit against Krish Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar and its President and Secretary for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Parbhati Lal defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., praying that he should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit as his interest is vitally involved and that his presence would enable the Court to completely and finally adjudicate upon all the points involved in the suit. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application on 22nd April, 1975. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

3. On behalf of the plantiff petitioner, it was contended that in a suit for permanent injunction the question of title of one shop inter se between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 could not be decided in this suit and the suit for injunction would, thus, ultimately be converted into a suit for title. It was therefore, contended that the learned Civil judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application. It was further contended that in a suit for permanent injunction, defendant No. 4 is not a necessary party. If for arguments sake it is assumed that the defendant No.4 was a necessary party, then the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed. It was, therefore, contended that by impleading defendant No. 4 intricate questions of title inter se between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 would have to be decided while the suit for permanent injunction could possibly be disposed of on the question of possession alone. Reliance was placed on Syed Wazir Ali vs. Syed Wali (1), Hussain vs. Shaft Mohammed (2), Ramnarain vs. Nandlal (3) and Deputy Commr. vs. Rama Krishna (4).

4. On behalf of non-petitioner No. 4, it was contended that the plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that he is the owner of two shops which are comprised in the suit property. This assertion by the plaintiff, it was contended is manifestly erroneous in as much as the answering defendant No. 4 is the owner of one of the shops, though the plaintiff has occupied that shop as a licensee. It was contended that the defendant No. 4 is vitally interested in the result of the suit, and as such, the learned trial Court correctly allowed his application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. It was further contended that if the application under O. 1, R. 10 C.P.C. is not allowed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and harassment to the parties. Reliance was placed on Sampatbai v. Madhu Singh (5), Moti Lal vs. Vasant (6) and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sohan Singh (7).

5. It was further contended that the scope of revision is extremely limited and even if a question of law has been wrongly decided or discretion has been improperly exercised, than too, the Court of revision could not interfere. Reliance was placed on Hindusthan Aeronautics vs. Ajit Prasad (8).

6. On behalf of the defendants No. 1 to 3, it was contended that the plaintiff has pleaded title over the suit property, and the question of prima facie case, is based on possession which is essential for issue of a permanent injunction shall depend on the title which the plaintiff has in the instant case. It was, therefore, contended that the learned Civil Judge did not commit any error in allowing the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., and in ordering that Prabhatilal be added as defendant No. 4. The learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 3 also invited the attention of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document