ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 1.8.2017 passed by 21st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in R.C.S No.A/4800179/2013, whereby, the application under Order 1 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure had been allowed by the learned trial Court directing to implead Mrs. Lubna Khan wife of Sharyar Khan and his mother Saba Khan, as defendants No.2 and 3 respectively.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following

broad submissions.

(i) The suit in question is for eviction of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent with interest thereon and, therefore, the scope of civil suit cannot be enlarged to that of declaration of title, as he has not raised any title dispute.

(ii) By allowing the application of the proposed defendant, the trial Court has acceded to its jurisdiction and has committed manifest error.

(iii) The proposed defendant No.2 Smt. Lubna Khan, has made an application for impleadment on the basis of false and fabricated sale deed executed by her mother Saba Khan which is against the Will of her brother and mother Krishna Shrivastava. In R.P No.315/2021, this Court has clearly held that Mrs. Lubna Khan is neither landlord nor is tenant and, therefore, at her instance, the review petition was found to be not maintainable wherein, the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.302/2017, was sought to be reviewed.

(iv) No stranger should be allowed to be impleaded as a party when civil suit is primarily for the decree of eviction and for arrears of rent between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

(v) He has also relied upon the unreported decision of the Supreme Court passed on 7.1.2014 in the case of Keshar Bai v. Chhunulal, in Civil Appeal No.106/2014 and in the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 580.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application as according to him, the respondent No.2 is the owner of the suit in question and, therefore, is a landlord. In absence of respondent No.2, no effective decree can be passed. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is seen that the respondent No.2 in para 2 of her application filed under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC. has stated that she has purchased the property by registered sale deed. It is also seen that the present civil suit appears to have been filed by the petitioner in the month of February, 2014, seeking relief of eviction in respect of property in question and on 27.8.2014, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against the respondent No.1. However, in an application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the original civil suit was restored to its number vide order dated 20.9.2016. It is seen that against the said order, an appeal (Misc. Appeal No.155/2016), was preferred before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhopal which was dismissed on 11.05.2017. Against the said order of dismissal, Civil Revision No.302/2017, was preferred by the petitioner which was decided on 29.2.2020 In the said revision, this Court has not set aside the order passed by the Courts below and has directed that the order impugned in that civil revision would be subject to deposit of rent in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, the order of allowing an application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC dated 20.9.2016 and dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional District Ju