VISHNU SWAROOP JOSHI Vs. JANKI PRASAD KURELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 20/08/2007, whereby the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by present petitioner is rejected by Court below. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was mischievous in nature. The plaintiff is not the owner of the premises, indeed petitioner is the owner of the premises. The plaintiff contended before the Court below that he has purchased the land in question from Krishna Swaroop (petitioner), Vishnu Swaroop and Kailash Narayan on 30/04/1965. As per condition of the deed, amount has not been paid and therefore, plaintiff became the owner. Just after one day of execution of the deed, a rent note was prepared and as per rent note, one of the vendor Kailash Narayan became the tenant. By drawing attention of this Court on rent note it is stated that it is forged document because the rent note contains the date of 01/05/1965, whereas stamps were purchased on 06/05/1965, rent note is filed as Annexure-P/4. Plaintiff filed the suit stating that he is the owner of the premises and defendant No.1 is tenant and defendant No.2 is sub-tenant, whereas as per the petitioner, petitioner and defendant No.1 are the real owners of the premises. On the basis of aforesaid stand, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment Annexure-P/5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed his reply. The Court below rejected the said application by impugned order, which is called in question in the present petition.

(3.) Shri Pratip Visoriya learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the order and submits that Court below has erred in rejecting the said application and petitioner is a necessary party.