GOPALAKRISHNAN T. V. Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rent Control Court thought that the junction of the petitioner in I.A. No. 2314 of 1998 was necessary for a proper disposal of R.C.P. No. 132 of 1994 filed before that court. The petitionerd in I.A. No. 2314 of 1998 claimed that they were coowners of the building along with the peitioners in R.C.P. No. 132of 1994. Against the order allowing the impleading, the petitioners in R.C.P. No.132 of 1994 filed an appeal under S.18 of the Act. It appears to us that an appeal under S.18 of the Act may not be maintainable against an order impleading a party since by mere impleading no rights are adjudicated upon. Any way, the Appellate Authority in its turn felt that there was no reason to interfere with the Order of the Rent Control Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impleading was unnecessary since the suit for partition was still pending and a final decree had not been passed therein. We do not think that is a ground for interfering with the order allowing the impleading. After all, the question of impleading is not one of initial jurisdiction, but is one of exercising jurisdictional discretion. It cannot be said that decretion has been exercised illegally, irregularly or improperly by the Appellate Authority or by the Rent Control Court. In that situation, we see no reason to interfere in this revision.