ANOKHE LAL Vs. RADHAMOHANBANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A landlord has come up in challenge of an order passed by a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, by which the application of first respondent to get himself impleaded as a party in a suit has been granted.

(3.) Facts are these: Appellant-landlord filed the suit for eviction of his tenant (M/s. Hanuman Prasad Shriram - a partnership firm) from a building leased out to the firm on the two grounds envisaged in Section 12(1) (a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The suit was contested by the firm and written statement for the firm was signed by one of its partners (Motiram). During the pendency of suit, first respondent in this appeal (who is the son of Hanuman Prasad - another partner of the firm who died) filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. The application was dismissed by the trial Court against which first respondent filed a revision before the District Court, but the revision was dismissed on 15-3-1994. First respondent filed a second application stating it to be under Order 30, Rule 4 of the Code, for getting himself impleaded. However, that application was also dismissed by the trial Court. He than filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the earlier order passed by the District Court on 15-3-1994 as well as the latter order passed by the trial Court dismissing his second application. The writ petition was later converted into a revision petition. During the pendency of the said revision the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on 26-5-1994 and the decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court on 29-11-1994. But learned single Judge passed the impugned order on 30-1-1995, allowing the second application of the first respondent.