RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed from an order of the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.2019, whereby it has set aside an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhansi, in Suit No.24 of 2013-14 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'the Act'), declining to implead the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 to this writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the orders impugned show that the suit for declaration was filed by respondent No.9 against the petitioner amongst three other defendants, two of whom have been substituted by now. The suit is not only one for declaration but also for ejectment under Section 209 of the Act. The plaintiff has claimed relief to the effect that a decree be passed in his favour and against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the suit (defendant No.2 being the petitioner), to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent No.9 be declared bhumidhar in possession of Khasra No.654/1.70 Acres situate at village Lahargird, Pargana and District Jhansi. A further relief has been sought, in rather uncertain terms to the effect that if in the opinion of the Court, possession of the plaintiff be not found, the plaintiff be put in possession after dispossessing any unauthorized person found in occupation. The third, fourth and fifth respondents here are purchasers from the original plaintiff Mohd. Maqsood, arrayed here as respondent No.9, through a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2004. The suit aforesaid was filed in the year 1982. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have now made an application in the suit seeking to be impleaded as plaintiffs to the suit on the basis of their rights derived through assignment under Order I, Rule 10 CPC. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court, which led the petitioner to file a Revision. The Revision has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 27.05.2019, where the Board have set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 07.09.2018 rejecting the Impleadment Application of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, and remand the impleadment application dated 18.01.2018/20.01.2018 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be determined afresh in accordance with the order of the Board of Revenue, as said in the body of the judgment impugned.

(3.) Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Aditya Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, for respondent No.3, Sri S.M. Shukla, for respondent No.10 and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.