DIWAKAR RAO GURJAR Vs. SHOBNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 3-5-2011 passed by learned 3rd Civil Judge Class I Sagar in C.S. No. 32-A/10 whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of the petitioner/objector to be impleaded as defendant has been rejected. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that a suit for eviction on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Shobna Mishra arraying Mahendra Kumar and Purshottam @ Munnalal as defendants. According to plaintiff, first defendant/Mahendra Kumar is the tenant while second defendant Purshottam @ Munnalal is his sub-tenant. This suit is pending and during the pendency of it, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the present petitioner/objector to implead him as defendant and that application has been rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) The contention of Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier a Civil Suit No. 6-A/08 was filed for title in which the present petitioner was arrayed as defendant and plaintiff was Laxman Prasad. That suit was decreed on 17-12-2008 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge Sagar in favour of Laxman Prasad. However, First Appeal (FA No. 73/09 Diwakar Rao Gurjar vs. Laxman Prasad Balaiya and another) is pending before this Court. In this first appeal, vide order dated 16-3-2009, an interim order was passed directing the parties not to alienate the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present suit has been filed by Smt. Shobna Mishra for eviction on the relationship of landlord and tenant on certain grounds envisaged under section 12(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, since Smt. Shobna Mishra is stepping in the shoes of Laxman Prasad against whom the fight is still going on in the first appeal therefore the petitioner is a necessary party in this suit for eviction filed against the tenant by present plaintiff Smt. Shobna Mishra.

(3.) Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application, therefore, this petition be dismissed.