URMILA PATEL Vs. LAXMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to a 'the Code') the petitioners have called in question the propriety of the order dated 23-6-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4A/89 by the learned Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur.

(2.) The facts as have been unfolded are that the respondent No.1, Laxmibai purchased a plot in the year 1942 at Village Kandeli in the name of her minor son Jagdish Sharan by a registered sale-deed. At the time of execution of this sale-deed Jagdish Sharan was only 13 years age. In 1947 Smt. Laxmibai constructed rooms over the said plot. In the year 1950 Jagdis Sharan became major and was married to Smt. Siyarani. Jagdish Sharan expired in the year 1950 itself. Smt. Siyarani deserted the house of her inlaws and on 16-8-1956 Smt. Laxmibai sold the house in question to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and delivered them the possession of the same. In the year 1976 Smt. Siyarani appeared and in collusion with Smt. Laxmibai filed a suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed on 16-8-1956 was without consideration and was obtained by playing a fraud upon her. In Civil Suit No. 144-A/82 the respondents Nos.3 to 5 herein, averred that the sale-deed was valid one and the property in question belonged to Smt. Laxmibai who had purchased it in the name of her minor son Jagdish Sharan.

(3.) The learned trial Judge considering the facts in entirety dismissed the suit. After the dismissal of the suit Laxmibai and Smt. Siyarani preferred a Civil Appeal No. 4-A/89 which is pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur for adjudication During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 sold the instant suit property by separate sale-deeds dated 24-5-1990 to the petitioners and also put them in physical possession of the property. The applicants thereafter filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code praying that they be impleaded as parties to the appeal. The application was rejected by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and it was open to her to implead the parties and the Court cannot compel to implead someone whom she did not want to implead. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present civil revision has been preferred.