RAVINDRA GIRI GOSWAMI Vs. DARAGANJ RAM LEELA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff revisionists have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Court of first instance in Original Suit No. 729 of 2005 Ravindra Giri Goswami and another v. Sri Daraganj Ram Leela Committee and another, rejecting the application paper No. 56-A for the impleadment of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (llnd Set) in the revision.

(2.) THE plaintiff revisionists instituted the above suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of the property No. 912/566 Daraganj, Pargana and Tehsil- Sadar, Allahabad city having area of 500 sq. yards more particularly described by the boundaries in the plaint on the allegation that the aforesaid property was in the shape of a house belonging to Rai Radha Raman Agrawal which ultimately devolved upon Durgesh Agrawal from whom it was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 10th February 2005. THE house was initially numbered as house No. 614 thereafter as 495,566 and presently 912/566 and that it has fallen down. THE defendants-respondents (1st Set) have no concern with the said property and even Ram Leela functions organized by the them are held at a site opposite to the Alop Shankari Temple which is different from the property in question. However, defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (1st set) have lately started threatening to dis-mental the boundary wall of the aforesaid property so as to grab the same by forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff revisionists. Thus, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was claimed restraining defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (1st Set) from dismentaling the boundary wall of the aforesaid house and from evicting the plaintiff revisionists from the same.

(3.) THE Court below allowed the above application and directed for impleadment of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (llnd set) in the suit by holding that without impleading them it would not be possible to effectively adjudicate the suit as such they are necessary parties and their non impleadment would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings.