SOHAN LAL Vs. CHANDANI MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit seeking cancellation of decree dated 07.09.2005 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 73 of 2004.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking her impleadment in the said suit, which has been allowed by learned trial court vide order dated 29.03.2016. Petitioner challenged the said order, passed by trial court, by filing revision under Section 115 of CPC. Learned revisional court affirmed the order passed by learned trial court and dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 07.04.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned courts below erred in allowing the impleadment application filed by respondent No. 1, as respondent No. 1 is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. He further submits that since effective decree can be passed even in the absence of respondent No. 1, therefore, he cannot be held to be a necessary party. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para 15 and 18 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of , which are extracted below: