Back
2001 Supreme(All) 1126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. RATHI
PREM KUMARI SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
RAJ MANI DUBEY - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 465 Of 2001
Decided On : 12/05/2001
G.S.Srivastava, RAJESH TANDON, RAVI KIRAN JAIN, Som Nath Seth
The presence of a party in a suit under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. is a matter of fact, and the court's decision is based on the necessity for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.
Headnote:
Revision - Impleadment in Suit - Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. - S. 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act - Chandrika Prasad v. District Judge, Rae Bareilly, 1981 All Rent Cas. 346, Jiya Lal v. XIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut (1984) 1 All Rent Cas. 280, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. IVth Addl. district Judge, Kanpur 1982 All Rent cas. 89, Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Ramesh chandra (1985) 1 All. Rent cas. 143, Sri Ram Bhagwan v. Ram Chandra (1987) 2 All Rent cas 357 (1 ), Sharafat Hussain v. XI Addl. District Judge, Moradabad (1992) 2 All Rent Cas 307, Gopi Nath v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur (2000) 40 All IR 685, Sri Mandir Mahadev Prithvi Nath v. Swamy Prakshanad 1981 All LJ 567, Lakshman Prasad Kanchan v. Kranti Kumar Kanchan 1992 All CJ 792, Smt. Prabha Saxena v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (1989) 2 All Rent. Cas 197, Shafiq Ahmad v. Vth Addl. District Judge. Varanasi 1988 All LJ 612, Ramesh Hiranand Kundanamal v. The Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 JT (SC) 116 : (1992 AIR SCW 846
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against the rejection of the application for impleading the revisionist in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revisionist claimed ownership of the disputed property based on a registered Will, while the plaintiffs claimed ownership based on an unregistered Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist's presence was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit, as her ownership claim was crucial to the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisionist should be impleaded in the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of the revisionist was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit, based on the ownership claim and the relevance of the registered Will.
Final Decision: The present revision was allowed, and the trial Court was directed to order the plaintiff to implead the revisionist in the suit and proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THIS revision under S. 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act have been preferred against the order, dated 6-8-2001 passed by the XVIII Additional District Judge/small Causes Court, Allahabad in Suit No. 2/2001, by which he rejected the application of the revisionist 15-C under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. for impleading her as party. The facts of the case are as follows:
( 2 ) THE opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed the above Suit No. 2/2001 against the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 for eviction from the disputed building and for recovery of arrears of rent. The Suit is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, who is exercising the powers of the Judge, Small Causes Court for this suit. The revisionist moved an application 15-C under Order 1, Rule X C. P. C. for her impleadment. It is alleged that she is daughter of Dr. Ishwari prasad who was the owner and landlord of the property in dispute. He in his life-time on 29-10-1984 executed a registered Will of the property in favour of the applicant, his only daughter; that it was the last Will of Dr. Ishwari Prasad and, therefore, after his death she has become the owner and the landlady of the premises in dispute; that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 claim the property on the basis of the unregistered Will, dated 22-7-1983, which is a forged Will and they are neither the landlords nor the owners of the property in dispute. The learned trial Court recorded the finding that the question whether the plaintiffs are the landlords of the building in dispute of defendants is only involved in this case. Therefore, the applicant is neither necessary nor proparty to the suit for complete and effective adjudication of the suit. He accordingly, rejected the application. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
( 3 ) I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran jain, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs in the Suit and have perused the record.
( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist that prior to this suit, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Suit No. 113/92 against the other opposite parties, which was also a Suit for eviction and arrears of rent regarding the same premises. In that Suit the applicant moved an application under Order 1, Rule X C. P. C. , which was rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the applicant filed a Civil Revision No. 299/94, which was allowed by the District Judge, Allahabad on 1-2-1995 by order, annexure 1 to the affidavit; that thereafter the applicant was impleaded in that Suit, That Suit was returned by the order, dated 29-11-1995 for presentation to proper Court under S. 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act for the reason that involve the question of title. It is contended that thereafter the present Suit has been filed in which the applicant has not been impleaded as party; that therefore the applicant applied for impleadment as party and her application was wrongly rejected by the trial Court.
( 5 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have raised several pleas. It is contended that the plaintiff is dominous litis and the general principle is that nobody would be impleaded as party, if plaintiff is opposed to it. It is contended that it is simple suit for eviction and arrears of rent, in which the only question for decision is that whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant exists or not; that, therefore, the revisionist is not necessary party to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the Suit. It is also contended that the Courts have repeatedly held that in a suit for rent and eviction third party cannot be added to complicate the issue; that the question of title is also not relevant.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents in support of the argument
