IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 15 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6903 of 2025 SHAILENDRA JAIN Versus AJIT KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akash Singhai - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER By way of present petition challenge is made to the orders dictated

08.07.2025 (Annexure P-11) and 8.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court during course of suit for eviction filed by the respondent No.1- plaintiff has rejected application for impleadment of the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC vide order dated 08.07.2025 and by the subsequent order the trial court has refused to review the said order when application under Order 47 Rule 1 PC had been filed before the trial Court.

2. It is the case of petitioner that a suit for eviction has been filed against the respondent No.2 who is admittedly the tenant. The plaintiff and the present petitioner are real brothers. It is the case of petitioner that the plaintiff being the brother of petitioner has filed an eviction suit against the tenant and though he does not dispute the tenant being in possession in the suit premises but the tenant has infact been inducted by the deceased father of the brothers and the deceased father has executed a Will in respect of the suit property in favour of the present petitioner/ proposed party. It is further the case of petitioner that even the tenant in his written statement has contended before the trial Court that he was inducted as tenant by the deceased father of the two brothers and he is now paying rent to the present petitioner/ proposed defendant. It is therefore, contended that the present petitioner is a necessary party and if not a necessary party, then at least a proper party to the suit.

3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that though the suit is filed for shop situated in House No. 251 but actually the property is situated in part of House No.252. House No.251 has been purchased by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 of his own, whereas House No.252 was owned by the deceased father of the two brothers and the father, before his death had executed a Will in favour of the present petitioner in respect of House No.252 and the eviction suit has been filed wrongly projecting the shop to be part of House No.251 but it is actually a part of House No.252 in respect of which, Will has been executed in favour of petitioner by the deceased father.

4. On these assertions, it is argued that the petitioner is a necessary party and if not a necessary party, then at least a proper party to the suit. 5. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that the suit has been filed for eviction of tenant from shop situated in House No.251, for which sale deed is in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner states to have succeeded House No.252 by way of Will from his father. The petitioner is the real brother of plaintiff.

6. The respondent No.2 being the tenant is not disputed by even the petitioner and there is no assertion in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that the petitioner does not intend to evict the tenant. Though in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC it is contended that he is receiving rent from the tenant but there is no assertion that the petitioner does not intend to evict the tenant from the property. In absence of making such an assertion that the petitioner does not intend to evict the tenant, then once a suit for eviction has been filed by his own real brother, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has no right to seek impleadment either as necessary or as a proper party.

7. The petitioner wants to convert the suit for eviction against the tenant into a suit for partition and declaration between family members and as per reply of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed before the trial Court it is evident that between members of