SUSHIL KUMAR PAL Vs. MEENA JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned counsel for respondents.

(2.) This is a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenging an order dated 03.01.2017 passed by Small Causes Court on an application filed by the revisionist under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. in SCC suit no. 193 of 2014 filed by the respondent no. 1, who is the owner and landlord of the premises in respect of which the suit has been filed.

(3.) The application for impleadment of revisionist has been rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for revisionist Shri Amrendra Kumar Tripathi is that even if the revisionist-applicant is not a necessary party, he is certainly a proper party in terms of what has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs Estate of Padmshri Smt Savitri Sahni (2010) 82 ALR 198 as in his absence an effective order cannot be made with regard to the dispute before Small Cause Court and his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision in question involved in the proceeding, especially as he may be bound by result of such proceedings