SHITLA PRASAD Vs. MATA SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in Revision is directed against orders passed by the courts below permitting the opposite parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the Plaintiff -applicants. By an order dated 17 -12 -77, the court below has directed the impleadment of the opposite -parties Nos. 2 to 10 as Defendants in the suit. By the second order dated 10 -4 -78, the court below has rejected an application filed by the Plaintiff -Appellant for review of its order dated 17 -12 -77.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision are these. The Plaintiff -applicant filed suit No. 46 of 1977 against one Mata Swaroop for specific performance of contract for sale of certain property. The assertion of the Plaintiff -applicant was that there was a written agreement between him and Mata Swaroop for sale of the property in suit in favour of the Plaintiff and that Mata Swaroop was wrongly refusing to execute the sale deed.

(3.) THE court below by its order dated 21 -12 -1977 allowed this application on the ground that the impleadment of opposite parties 2 to 12 would be necessary for a proper adjudication of the rights of the parties in the circumstances of the present case. The court below also observed that impleadment of these persons as Defendants in the suit would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the court below exercising power under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub -rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure directed the impleadment of the opposite -parties 2 to 10 as Defendants.