INDER SEN ISRANI, J.—This is revision petition under Section 115 C. P. C. against the order dated 22.10.1981 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 36/81 accepting the application of the non-petitioner No. 2 for impleading him as defendant in the suit.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for issue of perpetual mandatory injunction against the Municipality, Bharatpur alleging theiein that there was a Shankar Vyayam Shalla owned and possessed by him since the time of his ances-trals, in which the parvati, Shivji, Bheruji, Hanumanji are situated. The municipality Bharatpur built a urinal in the portion of Vyayam Shalla apart from this, the municipality Bharatpur gave a notice to the petitioner dated 21-1-81 asking him to demolish the room and chappar which stand in the Vyayam Shalla contending that the land belongs to the Municipality. Therefore, it was prayed in the suit that a perpetual injunction restraining the Municipality not to demolish the Construction standing on the land be issued. It was further prayed that a mandatory injunction be issued directing the Municipality to demolish the urinal. An application was filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 Babulal under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying that he is Manager/Secretary of the aforesaid Vyayam Shalla and should be made party to the suit. He further stated that the land is owned by the Municipality of Bharatpur.

3. The contention of the learned counsel Shri D. K. Soral appearing for the plaintiff is that the petitioner has filed the suit against the Municipality and has claimed no relief against the applicant/non-petitioner No. 2 and whatever relief has been claimed is against the Municipality and none else. It is stated that a notice was also given by the Municipality to the petitioner that he should remove his Tall within three days, otherwise it will be demolished by the Muni-cipality. It is contended by the learned counsel that the trial court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction as the non-petitioner No. 2 is neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner cannot be compelled to fight some person even when he has not claimed any relief against that person in his suit. It is also contended that the non-petitioner No. 2 has no interest in the land and clearly states that the land belongs to the Muni-cipality, therefore, it is for the Municipality to fight out the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2 has no interest in the same. My attention has been drawn to the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. Mukhtiyar Singh (1). This was a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the suit property belonged to him and a sale deed made by the defendants No. l and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. One Mohan Lal alleging himself to be the Pujari of Shri Satya Sahib Virajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumar filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. for impleading Shri Satya Sahib Kumar as party to the suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to the applicant and was in possession and the plaintiff was neither owner of the suit property nor was in its possession. It was held by this court that the trial court had committed serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as party in the present suit as the kind of controversy raised by the non-petitioner No. 4 would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendants. The case of Fatehraj Vs. Surajroop (2) was a suit filed for declaration against the Municipality. An application was filed for impleading as party merely with the object of enabling them to see that it is properly defended. Such an application was rejected by this Court. In the matter of Majhar Hussain Vs. Saffi Mohd. (3) it was held that the plaintiff being generally "dominus hitus" cannot be compelled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document