SURENDER SINGH Vs. MOHD. SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition assails order dated 21.05.2012 of Civil Judge -05, North whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the respondent, who was plaintiff in the suit, was allowed. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ranbiri Devi in respect of shop No. 8, Lalji Mandir Market, Munirka, New Delhi. The defendant Ranbiri Devi had filed written statement to the plaint. One of the pleas which she had taken was that LRs of original owner Ram Bhajan had sold the suit premises to Surender Singh by way of documents such as GPA etc. The respondent filed application seeking impleadment of Surender Singh in place of Ranbiri Devi since Ranbiri Devi stated to be no longer left with any interest in the suit shop after the same had been transferred to Surender Singh. The respondent/ plaintiff also alleged that now the threats were being extended by Surender Singh. Vide the impugned order the application was allowed and Surender Singh was impleaded as defendant in place of Ranbiri Devi and, consequently amendments were also allowed subject to payment of some costs. The petitioner challenged the impugned order stating him to be neither necessary nor proper party and, further that the sought amendments were highly belated and, further that in any case, the allegation against him gave rise to new cause of action to the respondent/ plaintiff and could not be added in the suit against Ranbiri Devi.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. It is seen that in the written statement that was filed by defendant Ranbiri Devi, she had stated that the suit premises had been transferred to Surender Singh, who was now the present owner and landlord of the plaintiff. It is also seen that the plaintiff had also complained to the police against Surender Singh when he allegedly extended threats to him on 12.05.2008 and 25.05.2008. On being asked, it was not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has acquired interest in the suit premises, having derived the same from the LRs of original owner Ram Bhajan.