UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners application as third party for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and his revision before the District Judge was also dismissed.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that he alongwith the plaintiff jointly resides in a premises about which the suit was filed. The relief claimed in the suit for temporary injunction against respondent defendant, was refused. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the petitioners brother became disinterested and, therefore, occasion arose for the petitioner to move the Court under Order I, Rule 10 C. P. C. for being impleaded as plaintiff. That prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the present plaintiff/respondent No. 6.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the prayer of the petitioner should have been accepted by the Court despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 was opposing the prayer.

5. It is true that the aforesaid provision of Order I, Rule 10 C. P. C. provides for impleadment of the third party either as plaintiff or as defendant in a suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document