The court emphasized the need to weigh the circumstances under which a third party seeks impleadment and not go against the general policy prevailing in such matters. Additionally, the court highlighted that if the third party has an independent cause of action, they may file a separate suit.

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. But then the circumstances under which the petitioner moves the Court for such impleadment has to be weighed by the Court before it passes order and the order should not be against the general policy prevailing in such matters. The present plaintiff in the suit is not agreeable to petitioners joining as plaintiff. Therefore, a third party cannot be put upon such plaintiff who might, at a subsequent stage of the suit, not be ameneable to him.

6. However, if the petitioner has any cause of action independent to his brother plaintiff respondent No. 6 in respect of the same subject-matter of the suit, if he so desires, may prefer to file a separate suit and such filing of the suit cannot be treated as a multiplicity of the proceedings.

7. Therefore, in the present case the circumstances are identical and in such a situation only the Courts have refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Such orders of the Courts below do not require any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The petition, having no force, is hereby dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document