DILIP MAHADIK Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MAHADIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the singular question is whether the court below has erred in disallowing the application of the petitioner preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ? Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against defendants No.1 and 2/ respondents No.2 and 3. The suit is registered as Civil Suit No.5A/2011. Written statement was filed in the said suit. The present petitioners preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for their impleadment on the ground that the plaintiff is real brother of applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 is son of real brother Late Mahendra Mahadik. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply. The court below by impugned order dated 9.8.2011 disallowed the said application.

(3.) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. At the cost of repetition, the singular question is whether petitioners were necessary parties and court below has committed any error in rejecting the said application ? In my opinion, the legal position cannot be doubted that the co-owners may file a civil suit for eviction if other co- owners do not object to it. This principle is based on the 'doctrine of agency'. This is also not in dispute that the relation between the plaintiff and the petitioners is admitted which is fortified by the partition suit pending before the competent court. This is settled in law that necessary party is a party without whom the matter cannot be adjudicated and no real order/judgment can be passed. The question is whether the petitioners are such parties in the eyes of law ? Although the principle of law laid down in the judgments cited by Shri Bansal cannot be disputed that a co- owner or landlord cannot file a suit for eviction against the tenants if other co-owners object. However, the said ratio and judgments cited on this point do not deal with the question of impleadment of a co-owner in a suit of this nature.