KALAWATI Vs. PREM NARAYAN SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. It was stated in the application that plaintiff's husband was executant of agreement of sale dated 04.11.1996 in her favour and therefore, she be impleaded as a party. Plaintiffs/petitioner filed reply dated 11.08.2012 and stated that respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party. This application is allowed by the court below by order dated 06.09.2012. The plaintiff filed application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. (Annexure P/4) in the said application, he prayed that one issue has been unnecessarily framed which be deleted. The Court below by the same order dated 06.09.2012 rejected the said application. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by this order, whereby the application of respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed and his application preferred under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. is dismissed. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) SHRI P.D. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner submits that impugned order is cryptic and does not contain any reason. Petitioners' defence against the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is not considered. The Court below has further erred in rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. Shri Agrawal relied on certain judgments and submits that plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead any body. He relied on : 1985 JLJ 191 (Sunil & Ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Dubey & Ors.)., 1995(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 220 (Indore Development Authority Vs. Chinrojilal and another) By placing reliance on Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is urged that merely because an agreement to sale is entered into, no right or title is created in favour of respondent No. 2.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.