KALAVATHI RATHANAKAR SATE Vs. AMBUJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed against the order of the First Additional civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Sagar in I. A. II in O. S. No. 37 of 1999.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the respondent in the revision. The revision petitioner made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC before the Trial Court to come on record as the second defendant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-Town Municipality for permanent injunction, alleging interference in possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff/respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner filed an application to come on record in I. A. II claiming that the revision petitioner is in possession of the property and that, she has purchased the property from the respondent. The said fact of transfer of sale of property in favour of the revision petitioner is in controversy. The Trial Court holding that impliedly the petitioner is not necessary party for determining the crucial issues involved in the suit, rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the revision is filed.

(3.) AFTER going through the order of the trial Court and on consideration of the facts involved, it becomes clear that the dispute sought to be made out by the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant-Town Municipality. The plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. On the other hand, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property and wants to come on record to dispute the claim of possession of the plaintiff.