ORDER

This petition by the impleading applicant in S.C.No.271/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the * XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM (SCCH-25), Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by the petitioner – impleading applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1 – plaintiff against respondent No.2 – defendant for ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, application for impleadment filed by the petitioner was rejected by holding as under:

“ ORDERS ON I.A FILED U/O I R.10 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC The counsel for the impleading applicant has filed this application praying to implead the proposed applicant as defendant No.2 in this case.

* Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 30.05.2024.

2. In support of the application the proposed applicant has filed affidavit stating that her tenant who is the defendant in this case had vacated the schedule premises and as such she is an interested party in this case and the property being her property as such it is just and necessary for her to come on record in order to defend her interest with respect to the schedule property as she is the owner of the property. As she is defending the suit from the very beginning and as such she is a necessary party in absence of her tenant and defendant herein. She had filed a suit in P.Mis. No.11/2020 before the Hon'ble CCH-3 at Bengaluru on 13.11.2020 which is preferred much prior to filing of this case. In the said suit it is her specific case that the plaintiff of this case had cheated her and defrauded her and got a fraudulent sale deed done in his name without paying consideration and thus he had sought for cancellation of the said deed dated 15.06.2019 which is pending for adjudication. This petition filed by the plaintiff on the strength of a forged rental agreement is not maintainable and thus case as to be suitably defended by her as the tenant has vacated the schedule property and no question arises that her tenant executing the rental agreement without her concern and he has also denied in his written statement about the execution of Ex.P1. As the tenant has left the premises and has not provided her with his present address and moreover he is not interested in the premises or this suit and as such she being interested and as her rights and possession may be effected in the case of not defending the suit properly without her present suit cannot be defended and hence prayed for allowing the application.

3. The counsel for the Plaintiff has filed objections stating that the application is not maintainable in this eviction suit. The impleading applicant is not party to the rental agreement dated 19.05.2020 executed by the defendant in the favour of the plaintiff and bring the impleading applicant on record is of no use as it create multiplicity of proceedings. The impleading applicant is not concerned to the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant as it is only a eviction suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and all connected documents are already produced before this court. No grounds made out by impleading applicant and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard and perused.

5. I have perused the application, objections and materials on record. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of ejectment against the defendant. If the defendant vacated the schedule premises it is for the plaintiff to report it before this court or the defendant has to report the same as to whom he handed over the keys of the schedule premises. This suit before this court is of a limited consideration and this court has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the parties. If the parties have any