POONAM JAIN Vs. HARISH CHANDER MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the trial Court dismissing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC made by the petitioner.

(2.) A suit for possession and mesne profits was being contested by three sons of Ram Kumar Gupta, the original tenant. The right to file written statement of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 was closed by the Trial Court, upheld by the High Court and an SLP filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. After dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the present applicant who is sister of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed an application for being impleaded as a defendant on the ground that she had also inherited the tenancy rights of her father. She pleaded that she was living in USA for last several years along with her husband, who was doing service there. She on her visit to India came to know about filing of the instant suit. Thereafter, she took steps to become a party and filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. She submitted that she was a necessary party as her rights were going to be affected.

(3.) THE Trial Court observed that the plaintiff had claimed relief against defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are in possession and occupation of the suit premises. The applicant was not residing in the suit premises and she was not a necessary party.