MANSHARAM Vs. KAILASHNARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioners whose application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. has been declined. The petitioners claiming interest in land which is said to be meant for common purposes. It was on these premises they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for coming on record. As noticed above this application has been rejected. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the non -petitioner has opposed the application. According to him, the petitioners' status is that of a complainant and they cannot be permitted to be brought on the record. He has placed reliance on a judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others. (1992) 2 SCC 524...... (1993) 13 Legal Reports and Statutes, 1245. Another judgment on which reliance has been placed is Sarup Chand v. Nagar Palika Sangrur and others (AIR 1980 P and H 114).

(3.) IT be seen that in the Supreme Court case, the dispute was between a person who was lessee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. It is this person who raised certain construction on the lease hold land. The Municipal Corporation wanted to demolish this. The lessee of Hindustan Petroleum filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation. It was in these proceedings, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The Supreme Court was of the view, that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation was neither a necessary nor a proper party. However, the petitioners' case in the present case is that they are necessary parties because the land regarding which the plaintiff/respondent Kailash Narain is seeking relief is common purposes land meant to be used by them.