DARSHAN SINGH CHADHA Vs. JASPAL SINGH CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assailed an order of learned Civil Jude dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaed as a party. Petitioner claimed that he was real brother of the plaintiff in the suit for recovery of rent, damages, mesne profits filed against the tenant. He was also one of the co-owner of the property and he was a necessary party to the suit therefore he should be impleded as a party.

(2.) The learned Trial Court observed that since the suit filed by the plaintiff was for possession of the suit property from the tenant inducted by the plaintiff in the property, the scope of the suit was limited to the relationship of landlord and tenant, termination of tenancy and recovery of mesne profits; the issue of the title of the suit property was alien to the suit. Therefore, the petitioner was not a necessary party.

(3.) It is settled law that a person can be impleaded as a party if either he is a necessary party for adjudication of dispute or he is a proper party. Necessary party is one without which issues raised in the pleadings of the parties cannot be decided. Proper party is one, presence of which helps in adjudication of the issues raised in the pleadings. It is not the case of the petitioner that property was not let out by the respondent no. 1 to the tenant. In fact tenant had admitted in WS that property was let out to him by respondent no.1. The suit is between landlord and tenant for recovery of possession, mesne profits, etc. No issue of ownership of the property is involved in this case. Therefore, the applicant was neither a necessary party, nor a proper party.