GURVIR INDER SINGH Vs. VIRENDER SAHLOT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 17.07.2007 vide which the application filed by the applicant Virender Sahlot seeking his impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as an intervener in the pending suit for partition filed between the plaintiff and the defendant had been allowed. This is the grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff before this Court.

(2.) RECORD shows that a suit for partition had been filed by the plaintiffs i.e. Gurvir Inder Singh and another against Indrani Singh; the other parties were siblings. The property in dispute is suit property bearing No.B -21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi. In the course of the proceedings an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been filed by the applicant Virender Sahlot. His contention was that the plaintiff Gurvir Inder Singh had signed a Special Power of Attorney dated 27.09.2005 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.09.2005 in his favour qua this suit property; further submission was that the applicant had in fact filed a suit for specific performance alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 before this Court seeking specific performance of this agreement which had been entered into between himself and Gurvir Inder Singh, this was in Suit NO. CS(OS) 1455/2005. Further contention is that an order of status quo had been passed on his interim application and the matter is pending adjudication before the concerned Court. Further submission in the application is that the present Suit which is an inter se suit between the plaintiff and the defendant will also affect rights of the present plaintiff and as such he seeks intervention/impleadment in the present proceedings.

(3.) PETITIONER before this Court is the plaintiff in the trial court. Admittedly, this is a Suit for Partition; this is a partition claimed by brothers against their sisters qua an inherited suit property. To deal with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, the Court has to see whether the applicant is a "necessary" or a "proper" i.e. a person who would be able to throw light on the controversy in question who can then be termed either as a necessary or a proper party depending upon the facts of the case. However, a party who is only going to create a further confusion by being added as a party cannot fall in either of the two categories. This Court is of the view that Virender Sahlot is of one such category.