ORDER

This petition by the impleading applicant in R.A.No.68/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Prl.JMFC, Tarikere, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC by the petitioner / impleading applicant, whereby the said application seeking impleadment in the appeal was rejected by the first appellate court.

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

3. The material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent – plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.448/2019 against the 1st respondent – defendant for ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the 1st respondent. The trial court passed the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2022 decreeing the suit in favour of the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 1st respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.68/2022, which is pending before the first appellate court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein claiming independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property, filed an application seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and the same having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the first appellate court has come to the correct conclusion that the petitioner was not a proper or necessary party to the appeal, especially when the petitioner was not arrayed as a party to the suit or the judgment and decree of the trial court. While, coming to the said conclusion, the first appellate court has held as under:-

“The instant application has been filed by applicant namely Sri. Devananda R., (third party applicant) seeking permission to come on record as respondent No.2.

2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, the third party applicant deposed that there was an agreement between Indian Oil Corporation and the respondent No.1 herein. The Indian Oil Corporation has issued letter of intent in his favour to operate retail sale hub in the suit schedule premises. As per the letter of intent, he is in possession of the suit schedule property and operating on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation. The respondent No.1 herein is aware of his possession, even then failed to make him as party to the proceedings. He was not aware of filing of suit for eviction as against Indian Oil Corporation.

3. Recently, he met the sales Manager of Indian Oil Corporation and came to know about the case and order of eviction in the original suit by the trial court. Since he is in possession of the suit schedule property, is also necessary party to the suit. He is having good grounds to succeed in the case. He has not get an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. Hence, this application. If application is not allowed, he will be put to great loss and hardship. Per contra, no harm or prejudice would cause to other side.

4. The application is objected by the regular respondent. It contended that the third party applicant is no way connected to the present case. Hence, application filed by him is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The third party applicant is not necessary or proper party to the suit.

He is not party in the original suit as well.

5. The real dispute is in between Indian Oil Corporation and the respondent Vasudeva Murthy. The respondent / plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, the appellant / respondent is tenant under the plaintiff. The agreement is in between the appellant and respondent in respect of the suit schedule property and the suit is in between landlord and tenant. The proposed respondent is neither tenant nor having any agreement. 6. The defendant company has filed detailed written statement and cross-examined PW.1 as well. But it is nowhere contended that the proposed respondent is sub tenant over the su