ANURAG SHARMA Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner, who claims to have purchased a piece of land from the Co-operative Society, has filed a suit in the trial court for a declaration that the sale deed excuted in his favour is valid and for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. In the suit filed by the petitioner some persons, who are not even members of the Co-operative society, have also been impleaded as defendants, as according to the petitioner, they intend to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit In the trial court respondents 7 and 8 filed application for impleadment on the ground that there is a temple on the land in dispute and the relief as claimed by the petitioner, if granted, temple will be demolished and that will interfere with their tight of worship. This application was rejected by the trial court. Against this order, respondents 7 and 8 filed a revision before the learned District Judge, which has been allowed. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that by impleadment, the nature of the suit is likely to be changed, which cannot be permitted under law. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has purchased the land from the co-operative society the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 70 for arbitration under U. P. Cooperative Societies Act.

(3.) IN this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the interveners have a right to file a fresh suit for redress of their grievance against the petitioner and as such their application for impleadment may be rejected ft is not possible for me to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. It is one of the well settled principles that multifariousness of proceedings should be avoided. A person who is necessary or proper party in a suit, should not be refused impleadment on the ground that he has an alternative remedy of filing a suit.