ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. VANKATESH RAMANUJ DAS A) SWAMI VAKATESHACHARYA SHASTRI CHELA SWAMI LAXMANCHARYA,DEHRADUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revi­sions are based on the same facts hence they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THESE revisions have filed against the order dated 2.2.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suits Nos. 2 of 2001 and 1 of 2001 respectively, by which he has re­jected the applications filed by the ap­plicants/petitioners to array them as de­fendants in the suits.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this question was not raised in the plaint. Therefore; it cannot be decided as the suit is collusive one between the plaintiff and defendant. The grievance of the petitioner shall stand redressed if the question as to whether it was self-acquired property of Laxmancharya or it was the trust prop­erty is decided in the suit between the plaintiff and defendant before passing the decree of permanent injunction or declaration. Therefore, it is provided that the trial court shall decide this issue while deciding the suit as to whether the prop­erty belongs to trust or the property was self-acquired property of Laxmanacharya. The trial court shall proceed as per provisions of Order ,1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, since the applicants/petitioners could not prove as to hour they were in­terested in the suits, therefore, in my opinion, the applications of the appli­cants/petitioners have rightly been re­jected.