JAYESH SONKAR Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is under section 115 C.P.C. against the order of ACMM Vth Kanpur Nagar dated 01.09.2009, by which the impleadment application filed by the respondent no.2 has been allowed in suit no.1120 of 2006.

(2.) IT appears that suit no.1120 of 2006 was filed by the respondent no.2 against the respondent no.1. Later on the respondent no.2 moved an application for the withdrawal of the suit as not pressed. The revisionist moved amendment application in the suit and prayed that since his interest is involved in the matter, therefore, he may be permitted to prosecute the suit. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 03.05.2007 and M/s J.A. Constructions has been permitted to prosecute the suit. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 moved an impleadment application which has been allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) FOR the construction of the building, the map has been sanctioned by the Kanpur Development Authority. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions has committed certain irregularities, therefore, Kanpur Development Authority has sealed the building on 23.12.2004, which has been later on unsealed. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions has moved an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which has been rejected by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Being aggrieved by the said order, M/s J.A. Constructions filed the appeal before this Court, in which as an interim measure, parties have been directed to maintain the status-quo. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions and the respondent no.2 filed various cases in different courts, which are pending. It appears that for the purpose of the construction, the respondent no.2 has given Power of Attorney to M/s J.A. Constructions and on the basis of the Power of Attorney, M/s J.A. Constructions was representing the respondent no.2. The said Power of Attorney has been cancelled on 25.07.2005. Despite the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, M/s J.A. Constructions filed the present suit in the name of respondent no.2 against Kanpur Development Authority, After the knowledge of the aforesaid case, the respondent no.2 moved an application for the dismissal of the suit as not pressed, which has been rejected. Later on the respondent no.2 filed impleadment application, which has been allowed by the impugned order. A.C.M.M. Vth Kanpur Nagar allowed the impleadment application on the ground that the respondent no.2 is the owner of the land. Initially the suit was filed in the name of the respondent no.2 against Kanpur Development Authority on the basis of the Power of Attorney and the result of the suit may affect the respondent no.2, therefore, the respondent no.2 is the necessary party.