NAKI ALI JAFRI Vs. NAWAB JEESHAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A.Qadeer, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order of the trial court by which his application under O.1 R.10 C.P.C. has been rejected. The court has recorded a finding that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff being suit No.500 of 2012 with regard to injunction against the defendants. The revisionist claims that he is a coparcener in the said property and in the garb of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs therein are trying to alienate the property for which the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon an agreement to sell filed as Annexure-6 to the revision. It is not disputed that with regard to the same property the parties are contesting their rights in another suit being suit No.2329 of 2014 filed by the revisionist himself. Under the circumstances the court has held that the rights of the parties would be decided in the said suit which is a suit for declaration that he is a coparcener in the said property. In the present case, however, it has been held that the said suit has been filed for injunction against another person and no relief has been sought against the revisionist, therefore, he is not a necessary party.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the view taken by the court below as in the present suit no relief has been sought against the revisionist, therefore, he is not a necessary party whereas with regard to the same property, the petitioner's suit No.2329 of 2014 is already pending which is for declaration for declaring him as coparcener.