JAGANNATH KESHAVLAL BAROT Vs. RASIKLAL SOMALAL PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the original defendant of the H. R. P. Suit no. 3662 of 1981 pending in the court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The opponent Rasiklal S. Pandya has filed the said suit alleging that this petitioner-defendant-landlord had rented the premises to him in March 1974 that the petitioner-landlord was threatening him directly and indirectly for the purpose of securing his eviction and the plaintiff therefore sought a prayer that the defendant be restrained from taking possession of the rented premises otherwise than in due course of law and also be restrained from causing any obstruction in the enjoyment of the rented property by him. The suit was pending for the purpose of filing the reply of this petitioner. Then the original plaintiff filed an application Ex. 16 for adding one Hargovan Nathuram Barot as the defendant no. 2 without seeking any relief against him. The basis of this application is that as per the telegraphic information received by the plaintiff-tenant subsequently from said Hargovanbhai the premises did not belong to the defendant but belonged to that Hargovanbhai N. Barot who had sent him a telegram directing the plaintiff-tenant not to have any dealing with this defendant-petitioner in respect of the suit property because the alleged power of attorney given by said Hargovan N. Barot to this petitioner was cancelled by him. The application was stoutly resisted by the defendant as noted by the learned Judge himself. Unfortunately the learned Judge allowed that application by observing as follows:

(2.) Above are the only reasons that prompted the learned Judge to add said Hargovanbai N. Barot as the defendant no. 2 in the suit. I am sorry to observe that the learned Judge has totally misdirected himself in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In the plaint the plaintiff tenant categorically stated that he had hired the premises from the defendant as back as in the year 1974. He had filed two rent receipts issued by this petitioner-defendant as the landlord at Ex. 3/1 and 3/2. Simply because a third party raises a dispute qua the defendant disowning his right to the property as a landlord that party raising the dispute does not become a necessary or a proper party to the suit. The nature of the suit is already disclosed by me above. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant his landlord who had let the premises to him was trying to evict him otherwise than in due course of law and was obstructing him in the enjoyment of the rented property. So his cause of action even after the proposed addition of the said new party remains the same. With this cause of action the third party is not concerned. That third party has raised a dispute gua the defendant-applicant alone and there is no tripartite dispute. Moreover the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that there is sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act which estops the tenant from denying the title of his landlord. If some third party raises the dispute it is not open to this defendant to get that dispute brought over to his suit filed by him against a person whom he has specifically called as a landlord of his and from whom he has stated to have hired the premises as a tenant.

(3.) The learned Judge is labouring under some misconception of law when he holds that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and he can implead as many persons as parties to his suit. It would have been better if the learned Judge had kept before his mind the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 read with Order 1 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code in this regard. Had the learned Judge taken note of Order I Rule 3 of the Code he would not have observed that any person and every person under the Sun can be made as a party-defendant according to the plaintiffs sweet- will. Only those persons are to be joined as the defendants where any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons whether jointly severally or in the alternative. The plaintiff wants the third party to be brought to this suit in order to watch with pleasure the wrangle between the defendant and that third party and enjoying merrily all the while the fight between the two to the considerable prolongation of the dispute which prolongation may be his objective in borrowing the alleged dispute between the defendant and said Hargovan Barot here in this suit. The application was therefore granted by the learned Judge without jurisdiction or at and rate he had committed material irregularity of procedure in the exercise of his jurisdiction by allowing an unconcerned party to be in the arena.