THIMMEGOWDA Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the order dated 25-10-1994 on LA. No. III in O.S. No. 340 of 1994 whereby the Munsiff, Mandya, has allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. moved by respondent 3 for impleading him as a defendant. The learned Court below after having considered the matter and taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in Angeline Monteiro Bai and Another v Mrs. Roslie G. Castelino and Sri Vardaman Stanakvisi Jain Sravak Sangha v Sri Swami Sangli Muneswara Temple Trust (Regd.) , opined that respondent 3 is a necessary and proper party whose presence would help the Court to decide the matter completely and thus allowed the application for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. The plaintiff has challenged the said order in this revision under Section 115, C.P.C.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for respondent 3.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Court below acted illegally in permitting respondent 3 to be impleaded who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit as he had no interest in the land in dispute, as the land belongs to the Government, i.e., respondents 1 and 2. He further submitted that it is well settled that unless and until a third party is a necessary or a proper party, the revisionist could not be compelled to implead such a third party in the suit and as such the learned Court below committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the application of respondent 3 to implead him as a defendant. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the revisionist made a reference to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and Others , and submitted that that decision support his contention that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to add a person as a defendant to the suit unless and until he is a necessary or a proper party for complete adjudication of the case. He also submitted that it is open to this Court to interfere in the case where the Court below has acted illegally or in material irregularity.