N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—This is a defendants revision against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No 1, Bharatpur dated 15.11. 1977, whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner No. 4 Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher under O. 1 R. 10 C. P. C.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner Himmat Singh filed a suit for declaration that the suit property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint belonged to him and a sale-deed made by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. It has further been prayed that the possession on the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff from the defendants. One Shri Mohanlal alleging himself to be a Pujari of Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher filed an application under O. 1 R. 10 C. P. C. for impleading Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher as a party in the suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to the applicant and was in his possession and that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit property nor was in possession. It was further pleaded that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendants and in case any decree would be passed it would seriously affect the interest of the applicant. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants contested the application filed by the non-petitioner No.4 and also denied that the applicant had any right or possession over the suit property and that Mohanlal was neither the Manager nor Pujari of non-petitioner No. 4. The learned trial court by its impugned order allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 4 and impleaded him as a party in the suit. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the defendant Ramesh Chandra has come in revision before this court.

3. Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the trial court committed a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in impleading the non-petitioner as a party in the suit in as much as the non-petitioner No. 4 was claiming a right in the property independently and adversely to the interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. A person who is coming forward on the basis of a title independently in his own right cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It is further submitted that by impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the suit the scope of enquiry of the present suit will be entirely changed and such person cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party under O. 1 R. 10 C.P.C. Mr Soral appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non-petitioner has also supported the contentions raised by Mr. Kejariwal.

4. Mr. Bhandari, appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4 has contended that the defendant-petitioner Ramesh Chandra can have no grievance against the impugned order passed by the trial court. According to the learned counsel even if, for argument sake, it may be admitted that the trial court was wrong in impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the suit, it is only the plaintiff who could have made any grievance and a defendant who has to fight a litigation against the plaintiff Himmat Singh cannot make a grievance that the non-petitioner No. 4 cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It was further contended that the trial court had a discretion to implead a party under O.1, R.10 C.P.C. and this court cannot interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 C.P.C.

5. From the averments made in the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming his rights in the property in his own right. He has not made any claim through the non-petitioner No. 4 nor he has shown any relationship with the non-petitioner No. 4. In the suit filed against the defendant by Himmat Singh plaintiff the controversy will be determined between the parties as regards, the question of the right of ownership and possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document