CHATRAPATI SINGH DEV Vs. AMULYA KUMAR PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.96 of 1998 obtained by respondents 2 and 3 is a fraudulent collusive decree and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining execution of that decree, filed by the first respondent in his capacity as the Manager of Raja Chatrapati Singh Dev. Mandasa Palace, petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as second plaintiff, in the suit, on the ground that he is the actual beneficiary of the suit filed by the first respondent.

(2.) First respondent did not oppose the petition but respondents 2 and 3 opposed the application on various grounds, including the ground that since petitioner already filed O.S.No.2 of 1999 he need not come on record in this suit. They also contended that since the petition contains two prayers i.e., seeking impleadment and consequential relief of amendment of the plaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Junior Civil Judge found favour with the contention that two prayers cannot be claimed in one petition, and on the ground that petitioner suppressed the factum of his filing another suit, dismissed the petition of the revision petitioner.