MURAHADI SYYADISYED SHA SYED MOHIDDINSHA OULYA RAHAMTULLA ALYHI DARGA Vs. GUTAM SHAJAD ALIAS SHAHJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to implead them as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. In spite of opposition of the revision petitioner, the trial Court, by the Order under revision, allowed the said petition and permitted respondents 3 to 5 to come on record as defendants 3 to 5. Hence this revision by the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit for injunction is filed against respondents 1 and 2 only, respondents 3 to 5, who seek to come on record as defendants are not either necessary nor proper parties to the suit and so the trial Court was in error in allowing the petition. He placed strong reliance on A.Peter Son Israel Vs. V.Jayaprada and others1 in support of his contention that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition filed by respondents 3 to 5.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 is that the 'darga' in respect of which the suit is filed, is a public place of worship, and that some persons mischievously got registered the petitioner society and filed the suit against two aged persons, and that respondents 3 to 5 who have been worshiping in the said darga from a long time want to come on record to establish that the darga in respect of which the suit is filed is a public place of worship and is not a private darga and so, respondents 3 to 5 are proper if not necessary parties to the suit, as their right to worship in the darga may be in a jeopardy if an injunction were to be granted against respondents 1 and 2 who due to their old age may not be able to defend the suit properly, and so the order under revision needs no interference.