MAHINDER AHUJA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present revision petition has taken exception to an order dated March 4,1993 passed by Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by one Mahinder Ahuja ( hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for his impleadment as one of the parties in Suit No. 19/89, Smt. Makhani Devi Juneja vs. Delhi Development Authority.

(2.) It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that Smt. Makhani Devi and Shri Vilayat Juneja ( hereinafter referred to.as respondents Nos. 2 & 3 ) filed a suit against Delhi Development Authority i.e. Suit No. 19/89, for a declaration and permanent injunction. They through the said suit prayed for a restraint order against the DDA not to give effect to the cancellation order dated January 2,1989 whereby the allotment order dated July 1,1975 was cancelled in respect of Stall No. 22, C-4E, Janakpuri, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the disputed shop). The petitioner through the present application wants his impleadment in the above suit on the ground that respondents Nos. 2 & 3 have sold a part of the abovesaid disputed shop in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the applicant, for a valuable consideration and executed quite a good number of documents including an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, will etc. Smt. Savitri Devi on the basis of the said documents got into possession of the disputed shop. Later on the said shop was transferred in favour of the petitioner and his brother Sanjay Ahuja. Smt. Savitri Devi to witness the said transfer also executed certain documents such as agreement to sell, power of attorney and other documents in favour of Shri Sanjay Ahuja. The possession over half portion of the disputed shop was also handed over to him. Since then the petitioner has been running his business in the half portion of the said shop of readymade garments under the name and style of ESS EMM Readymades. Thus in case the impugned allotment is cancelled by the DDA it would be the petitioner who would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for the complete adjudication of the controversy in the suit alluded to above. The abovesaid plea did not find favour with the learned lower court and rejected the application vide order dated March 4,1993.

(3.) Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order the petitioner has approached this Court.