VINEET KISHORE JAIN Vs. VANDANA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Kshitij Shailendra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicants and Shri Amit Saxena, the learned counsel for O. P. No. 1.

(2.) THE plaintiff-applicants filed a suit claiming that they had a valid lease deed in their favour of plot No. 430, Civil Lines, moradabad, and that, the defendant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are arrayed as o. P. Nos. 2 and 3 in this revision, are interfering in their possession. Consequently, a suit was filed claiming the following reliefs:-

(3.) SMT. Vandana Agarwal, O. P. No. 1 in this revision, filed an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision has been filed. The trial Court has held that the opposite party was a necessary party and should be impleaded.