ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SUNNUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the revision against the trial Court's Order dated 11 -12 -79 dismissing the intervener Ashok Kumar's application for being joined as a party in the pending Civil Suit No. 114 of 66 Sunnu Khan v. Basai Khan and others.

(2.) IN a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, partition and possession filed by Sunnu Khan (present non -applicant No. 1) against certain members of his family viz. Basal Khan and others (present non -applicants -defendants No. 2 to 5), temporary injunction had been granted against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the subject matter viz. the properties in suit. The present applicant Ashok Kumar had purchased some of the lands in suit from the defendants Kasimkhan and Subratikhan (non -applicants No. 4 and 5) during the pendency of the suit. Ashok Kumar having, thus, purchased part of the suit lands, filed the application under Order 22 rule 10 CPC for being joined as a defendant in the suit. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff, that Ashok Kumar could cot be joined in the suit, inasmuch as the purchase of the property by him during the pendency of suit was bit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court, upholding the petition of the non -applicant No 1 Sunnu Khan and being further of the opinion that Ashok Kumar's such purchase was in violation of the temporary injunction which had been granted against the defendants, rejected Ashok Kumar's application under O, 22, R 10 CPC and hence now, the present revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non -applicant -plaintiff has tried to repel the arguments pressed by the applicant's learned counsel by eon ending that the trial Court's discretion in the matter of its order passed under O. 22, R. 10 CPC, cannot be lightly interfered with except on cogent grounds which in the present case, are none. Order passed by the trial Court, being well within proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, without any material irregularity or illegality, is urged to be not open for interference in revision. It is also pressed before me that the applicant Ashok Kumar had merely purchased the right to litigate; and as such, he did not deserve to be allowed to be joined as a necessary or proper party in the case