M.C. JAIN, J.—This is the plaintiffs revision against the order dated September 27, 1982, passed by the Munsiff, Bhinmal, whereby he allowed the application of Jabbar Singh, non-petitioner No. 1 under Or. 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.

2. The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit against the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, with the allegation that the plaintiff is the owner of plot measuring 11,429 Sq yds, situated in town of Bhinmal. The original owner thereof was one Solanki Jivaji Jorji and the plaintiff purchased that land from one Bhairushan-kar on Bhadwa Sudi 7, St 2026, for a sum of Rs. 81/-. Since then he is in possession of the suit p!ot. The plaintiff further averred that the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, invited applications for leasing out that land for industrial purposes and about nine persons have deposited earnest money along with the applications. The plaintiff sought a relief of injunction to the effect that the Municipal Board be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in question. The Municipal Board submitted its written statement denying the plaintiffs title and possession over the plot in question. On 7. 1. 1980 Jabbar Singh, non-petitioner No. 1, submitted an application under Or. 1, R. 10, C P.C. stating that in the past the plot in question was owned and possessed by Jagirdar Guman Singh and Ajit Singh and on Phalgun Sudi 3, St. 1993 Guman Singh had sold that land to Jabbar Singhs grand father Ranjeet Singh. His ancestors and he were and is in possession of the plot since the date of its purchase. An allegation of collusion was also made by Jabbar Singh on the ground that the parties to the suit agreed for appointment of the Receiver.

3. Jabbar Singhs application was resisted by the plaintiff and it was contended on his behalf that the suit is in between the plaintiff and the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, and relief has only been sought against the Municipal Board. In such a situation the intervener Jabbar Singh cannot be made a party. It was also stated that even if Jabbar Singh has got any piece of evidence with him with respect to title over the plot in question, still he has got no right to be impleaded as a party to the suit. In respect of the document of the sale, it was alleged that the document is a forged one. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, allowed the application of Jabbar Singh. He gave reasons that the nature of suits will not change and in case Jabbar Singh is added as a party, multiplicity of the suit will be avoided and besides that a complete and effectual decree can be passed by deciding the issue involved in the suit. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Munsiff, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri A. L. Chopra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, Shri Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for Jabbar Singh and Shri Narpatmal Lodha, learned counsel for the Municipal Board, Bhinmal.

5. Mr. A. L. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the plaintiffs suit is simply a suit for injunction and the plaintiff has to establish his right only against the Municipal Board, Bhinmal. If Shri Jabbar Singh is added as a party, the simple suit for injunction will be converted into a suit for title. Even if Jabbar Singh would not be added as a party, his right would not be affected, as the decree would not be binding on him and if he has any title over the plot in question, he has got his remedy to file a regular suit. The plaintiff has been in coatinuous possession of the plot in dispute since long and previously the successors of the original title holder, were in possession. He also pointed out that in case Jabbar Singh is allowed to be impleaded as a party, then the litigation would be unnecessarily prolonged and there would be deiay in the trial of the suit and the person, who has got no title and possession over the property, would be able to get his title and possession adjudicated. Mr. Chopra referred to some case law in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document