SAVITABEN BALKRISHNA MANIAR Vs. AJANTA ESTATE AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties. This Civil Revision Application is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 1-2-1994 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh. Under the order dated 1-2-1994, the petitioner herein was directed to be joined as defendant No. 7 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 73 of 1988 filed by the plaintiff-opponent No. 1 herein.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and as such, the learned trial Court has committed serious error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It has next been contended that merely because the opponent No. 1 is desirous of filing application for attachment before judgment of the property of the petitioner, on this ground alone, the trial Court could not have impleaded the petitioner as party to the suit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is a necessary party as she has got the property from Smt. Chandraprabha Vahuji Maharaj who was the executor of the agreement to sale of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-opponent No. 1 and in the suit an alternative prayer has been made for recovery of the amount paid together with interest. It has next been contended that the petitioner is one of the legal representatives of Late Smt. Chandraprabha Vahuji Maharaj and as such she is necessary party to the suit. Further contention has been made that all other legal heirs of Smt. Chandraprabha Vahuji Maharaj have already been impleaded by the plaintiff-opponent No. 1 as a party to the suit. Smt. Chandraprabha Vahuji Maharaj has given part of the property to the petitioner by way of will which the plaintiffopponent No. 1 is questioning.

(3.) Lastly, it is contended that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sec. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such this revision petition is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors., reported in 1993(2) SCC 507 and Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramaraino v. Nalini Bai Naique, reported in 1989 Supple. (II) SCC 275.