Skip to content


Ramesh Chandra Vs. Mukhtyar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 73 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1980Raj21
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10
AppellantRamesh Chandra
RespondentMukhtyar Singh and ors.
Appellant Advocate R.S. Kejariwal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Arun Bhandari and; D.K. Soral, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....the nature of engagement in both the establishments. however, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the court will take these facts into consideration. - it was further pleaded that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendants and in case any decree would be passed it would seriously affect the interest of the applicant both the plaintiff as well as the defen~ dants contested the application filed by the non-petitioner no. 4 was claiming a right in the property independently and adversely to the interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendants......no. 1, bharat-pur dated 15-11-1977, whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner no. 4 shri satya sahib birajman mandir shri satya sahib kumbher under order 1 rule 10 c. p. c.2. brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner himmat singh filed a suit for declaration that the suit property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint belonged to him and a sale-deed made by defendants nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. it has further been prayed that the possession of the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff from the defendants. one shri mohanlal alleging himself to be a pujari of shri satya sahib birajman mandir shri satya sahib kumbher filed an application under order 1 rule 10 c. p. g, for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Bharat-pur dated 15-11-1977, whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner No. 4 Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner Himmat Singh filed a suit for declaration that the suit property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint belonged to him and a sale-deed made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. It has further been prayed that the possession of the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff from the defendants. One Shri Mohanlal alleging himself to be a Pujari of Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. G, for impleading Shri Satya Sahib Biraj-man Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher as a party in the suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to the applicant and was in his possession and that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit property nor was in possession. It was further pleaded that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendants and in case any decree would be passed it would seriously affect the interest of the applicant Both the plaintiff as well as the defen~ dants contested the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 4 and also denied that the applicant had any right or possession over the suit property and that Mohanlal was neither the manager nor Pujari of non-petitioner No. 4. The learned trial court by its impugned order allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 4 and impleaded him as a party in the suit. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the defendant Ramesh Chandra has come in revision before this court.

3. Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the trial court committed a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in impleading the non-petitioner as a party in the suit inasmuch as the non-petitioner No. 4 was claiming a right in the property independently and adversely to the interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. A person who is coming forward on the basis of a title independently in his own right cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It is further submitted that by impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the suit the scope of enquiry of the present suit will be entirely changed and such person cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. Mr. Soral appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non-petitioner has also supported the contentions raised by Mr, Kejariwal.

4. Mr. Bhandari, appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4, has contended that the defendant petitioner Ramesh Chandra can have no grievance against the impugned order passed by the trial court. According to the learned counsel even if for argument sake, it may be admitted that the trial court was wrong in impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the suit, it is only the plaintiff who could have made any grievance and a defendant who has to fight a litigation against the plaintiff Himmat Singh cannot make a grievance that the non-petitioner No. 4 cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It was further contended that the trial court had a discretion to implead a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. and this court cannot interfere in the exercise of revisional juris-diction under Section 115 C. P. C.

5. From the averments made in the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming his rights in the property in his own right. He has not made any claim through the non-petitioner No. 4 nor he has shown any relationship with the non-petitioner No. 4. In the suit filed against the defendant by Himmat Singh plaintiff the controversy will be determined between the parties as regards the question of the right of ownership and possession of Himmat Singh only. The non-petitioner No. 4 has also not made any allegation in the application that he had any connection in the suit property through the plaintiff Himmat Singh or that the property belonged to their common ancestor. The non-petitioner No. 4 wants to become a party independently in his own right and wants to get the controversy determined in this very suit whether he is owner and in possession of the suit property. This kind of controversy as raised by the non-petitioner No. 4 would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff Himmat Singh and the defendant. I am also not convinced with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 4 that the defendant cannot raise any grievance against the impugned order. The defendant-petitioner is party in the suit and in case the non-petitioner No. 4 is impleaded as a party in this very suit, the result would be that the defendant-petitioner will have to contest the suit against the two plaintiffs and will have to show that both of them are not owners and in possession of the suit property. Thus the defendant-petitioner is very much an aggrived person against the impugned order and there cannot be any doubt that he can also file a revision against the impugned order. The learned trial court has thus committed a serious illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in im-pleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the present suit. It may be further observed that the apprehension of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 4 that any decree or judgment passed in the present suit will in any manner bind or affect the interest of his client is totally unfounded. As already observed above the non-petitioner No. 4 is claiming the title and possession over the property independently in his own right and if he is not impleaded as a party in the suit, no judgment or decree passed in the suit can ever bind him.

6. In the result this revision succeeds, The order of the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur dated 15-11-1977 impleading non-petitioner No. 4 Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher, as a party in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.


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