SANJAY SAWNEY Vs. SANTHOSH SAWNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 10 -12 -2007 passed by Judge SCC/Addl. District Judge/2nd F.T.C. Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 16/2003, Santosh Sawney vs. Sukhdev, whereby the application filed by the revisionist U/O 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that SCC suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 against defendant respondent No.2, wherein eviction of the defendant/respondent No.2 has been sought from the premises in question mentioned in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be co -owner and landlady of the premises in suit. During the pendency of the suit the revisionist filed an application for impleament in the above suit on the ground that the property in suit was purchased by his father late Sri Nand Lal Sawney which was an evacuee property No. 90/91 Dandipur Mohalla Dehradun. Thus on the basis of conveyance deed he claims himself to be owner of the premises in question in place of plaintiff -respondent No.1. The learned Judge SCC placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in 2000(2) A.R.C. page 308, wherein it has been held - 'Since the question is to be inter se between the plaintiff and the applicant, it is a question outside the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, such applicant can not be allowed which give rise to a question of title. By virtue of amendment or addition of parties, the entire complexion of the suit will be altered changing the nature and character of the suit between two plaintiffs, which cannot be decided in a suit for eviction between the plaintiff and defendant -tenants. If there is a right between the plaintiff and applicant and can be established through a separate suit before appropriate forum which can decide the disputed question. Therefore, the application has been rejected rightly. Thus, on the basis of the objection by the plaintiff, no person can be added as plaintiff in a suit.