Skip to content


Rameswarlal Vs. Panchu Sahu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 381 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Ori116; 35(1969)CLT150
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 1, Rule 10(2)
AppellantRameswarlal
RespondentPanchu Sahu and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Misra and ;R.C. Patnaik, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateA.K. Padhi, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........mun-sif, khurda, by which he allowed the application of a third party being opposite party no. 2 gagan behari patnaik for being im-pleaded as a defendant in a rent suit.2. tills revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent from the defendant-opposite party no. 1 panchu sahu. before the written statement was filed by the defendant-opposite party no. 1 panchu sahu, the opposite party no. 2 gagan behari patnaik made an application to be impleaded as a party claiming that he is the owner of the suit property in respect of which the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of rent from opposite party no. 1 panchu sahu.3. the question is : can this simple suit for rent be converted into a suit for title by adding opposite party no. 2 gagan behari patnaik? it is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Barman, C.J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in revision against an order of the learned Mun-sif, Khurda, by which he allowed the application of a third party being Opposite Party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik for being im-pleaded as a defendant in a rent suit.

2. Tills revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent from the defendant-opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu. Before the written statement was filed by the defendant-opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu, the opposite party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik made an application to be impleaded as a party claiming that he is the owner of the suit property in respect of which the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of rent from opposite party No. 1 Panchu Sahu.

3. The question is : Can this simple suit for rent be converted into a suit for title by adding Opposite Party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik? It is not that under no circumstances such application should be allowed. In the present case, opposite party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik himself had already filed a title suit being O. S. No. 86/60 before the Munsif, Khurda, claiming that he is the real owner of the disputed property. It is not understandable why the learned Munsif allowed the application of opposite party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik to be impleaded as a party in this suit for rent when the said title suit filed by him was already pending. What the learned Munsif should have done is to wait for the result in the said title suit and then give his decision on the said application for being impleaded as a party. Apparently, the attention of the learned Munsif was not drawn to this aspect of the matter. In any event, it is a material irregularity which vitiates the impugned order.

4. In this view of the case, the impugned order of the learned Munsif dated December 16, 1965 by which he allowed the application of opposite party No. 2 Gagan Behari Patnaik for being impleaded as a defendant in the rent suit is set aside. The learned Munsif is directed to keep the application pending until the title suit O. S. No. 86/60 is disposed of.

5. In the result, the civil revision isallowed with the directions as aforesaid.There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //