GOPIKABAI NATHURAM MALEKAR Vs. BAPURAO MAHADEORAO SURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Gopikabai w/o Nathuram Malewar and Smt. Mirabai w/o Gangaram Waghmare who have filed Civil Suit No. 29/90 in the Court of Small Causes Court, Nagpur against Non-applicant-defendant who have preferred this revision application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C.) dissatisfied with the order dated 8-4-1991 passed by Small Causes Court, Nagpur allowing the defendant's application for impleading Barmadin Dubey as one of the defendantsin the suit

(2.) THE plaintiffs admittedly have filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the Non-applicant Bapurao. The defendant moved an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. stating therein that one Barmadin Dubey is necessary party in the present suit because one Balaji Shrawan Dandekar had during his life time executed an agreement to sell in regard to the disputed property in favour of one Barmadin Dubey and the said Barmadin Dubey had filed suit for specific performance of contract which is registered at Civil Suit No. 14/85 and is pending trial before the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The defendant thus prayed that Barmadin Dubey is necessary party in the present suit, and, therefore, he should be impleaded as Defendant No. 2.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the order dated 8-4-1991 passed by Small Causes Judge, Nagpur, cannot be sustained and is consequently set aside. The application filed by the defendant under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. is dismissed.