GOKUL PRASAD Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, dated 21-10-1994, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision Petition Nos. 68, 33, 54 of 1991-92/Lalitpur Gokul Prasad etc. v. Babu Lal Etc., arising out of the judgment and order, dated 27-11-1991, passed by the learned trial Court, on an application, dated 27-11-1991, under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, filed in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition may be allowed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that during the pendency of a suit under Section 229-B of the Act instituted by Babu Lal, plaintiff against the Gaon Sabha, concerned and the State of U.P. before the learned trial Court, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by Gokul Prasad on 27-11-91 for this impleadment as party to the suit, in question, on the basis of a sale-deed, executed in favour of his father in 1945 by Babu Lal. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties concerned, rejected this application, vide its order, dated 27-11-1991, inter-alia, holding that since the applicant did not take any steps for his mutation since 1945, no question of his impleadment as a party to the suit arises and therefore, the applicant went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record, on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by Gokul Prasad for his impleadment as party to the suit, which was rejected by the learned trial Court on 27-11-1991, simply on the ground that the suit was proceeding at the stage of hearing and the applicant did not take any steps for his mutation since 1945. The learned Additional Commissioner, has observed that since the sale deed, in question, is registered one, the applicant is an interested person and should have been impleaded as a party to the suit. The recommendation, made by him appears to be quite logical and plausible and therefore, I am inclined to accept the same. Needless to say, since this is one of the oldest cases pending before the learned trial Court, it is, at least, expected to dispose of the same expeditiously.