RAKESH Vs. BHARAT JI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN BHARAT MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Anil Sharma, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Dinesh Ghaturi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

(2.) Inspite of a specific order to serve respondent nos.3 & 4, no steps have been taken by the revisionist to serve the respondent nos.3 & 4 by registered post. It transpires that respondent nos.3 & 4 filed an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against respondent nos.1 & 2, namely, the temple and its Mahant seeking leave to file a suit. It is alleged that permission was granted by the court below and the application was subsequently converted into a suit. It has also been alleged that an injunction order was also passed by the court below restraining the respondent nos.1 & 2 from alienating the property in question.

(3.) During the pendency of the proceedings, the revisionist Rakesh filed an application 12-C under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. contending that he is a frequent visitor of the temple in question and he has personal information with regard to the misappropriation of the property in question at the hands of its Mahant and, consequently, prayed that he should be impleaded as a plaintiff so that he could bring necessary evidence before the court to indicate that the Mahant of the temple is misappropriating the property in question. This application was opposed by the defendant nos.1 & 2. The court below, after considering the matter, rejected the application 12-C and held that the revisionist Rakesh was not a necessary party, and was not required to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. The court below held that the revisionist may appear as a witness and provide all the necessary information and evidence against the temple and its Mahant.