S.N. Modi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, dated April 24, 1976, whereby he allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondent for impleading Dalip Singh, the husband of the petitioner, to be a party in the suit.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows. The plaintiff-petitioner is the owner of the bungalow described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. She claimed ownership of the bungalow on the basis of a registered partitioned dated September 27, 1968. In the year 1975, she applied under Schedule VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act No. 8 of 1910) to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to provide electricity connection for light and power to her Bungalow. The application for providing light and power connections were accepted by the defendant-non-petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter deposited the security amount demanded by the defendant-non-petitioner and she also purchased all electric fittings necessary for getting electricity connection. Even after completion of all necessary requirements for providing electricity connection, no electric connection was provided to the bungalow, the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this revision petition arises, for issue of a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to provide electric connection of light and power to the bungalow owned by the plaintiff. Along with the plaint, an application was moved for providing electric connection during the pendency of the suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and this application was granted and electric connection of light and power were provided to the plaintiff's bungalow.
3. The defendant resisted the suit mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the partition deed dated September 29. 1968 was a collusive one and by virtue of this partition deed, the plaintiff did not become the owner of the bungalow; and secondly, that the plaintiff's husband Dalip Singh was indebted to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to the tune of Rs. 44,968/36, out of which Rs. 38,443/38 related to the period upto December 1962 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,524/98 related to the period from Jan. 1963 to April 1975. It was alleged that until Dalipsingh paid the entire amount due to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board no light and power connections could be provided to the bungalow.
4. The defendant-non-petitioner also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Dalipsingh as a co-defendant in the suit This application was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to implead Dalip Singh as co-defendant in the suit. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.
5. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that by impleading Dalipsingh, the non-petitioner wants to realise its dues outstanding against Dalip Singh. In other words, it wants to convert this simple suit for grant of injunction into a suit to realise its dues from a third person who is not at all concerned with the plaintiff's right to get electric connection to her bungalow. It is further contended that in this suit for mandatory injunction, the inquiry as to the amount due from Dalip Singh cannot be gone into as it has got nothing to do with the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
6. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner in reply conceded at the Bar that the non-petitioner would not agitate its claim in this suit in. respect of dues outstanding against Dalip Singh. The learned Counsel for the respondent further made it clear that the whole purpose behind impleading Dalip Singh as a party to the suit is to determine finally the controversy whether or not the plaintiff acquired ownership rights to the bungalow by virtue of the alleged partition-deed.
7. In my opinion, if no inquiry as to the amount outstanding against Dalip Singh is going to be made in this suit, it cannot be said that the lower court committed error in passing the impugned order for impleading Dalip Singh as a co-defendant in the suit. The only point, which the defendant-non-petitioner will be allowed to agitate against Dalipsingh would be whether or not the plaintiff became owner of the bungalow by virtue of the partition-deed dated September 27, 1968. No question would be raised or agitated as to the amount due to the defendant-non-petitioner from Dalip Singh.
8. With these observations, I dismiss the revision petition. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.