ARUN HIRWAY Vs. RAJESH GUPTA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are invoked to assail the interlocutory order dated 20/10/2010 in C.S. 16A/2009, passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.), whereby an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., was filed by urging that the applicant/petitioner was necessary party. It was urged that the defendant/tenant Smt. Kalpana Kapde (Smt. Kalpana Hirwe) who happens to be estranged wife of the applicant/petitioner is not the tenant. It was further urged by the petitioner that the suit accommodation was the property of Smt. Meena Gupta, who entered into an agreement dated 25/6/2007 in favour of the mother of the petitioner/applicant pursuant to which the possession of the suit accommodation was handed over to the mother of the applicant/petitioner, after whose death, the applicant/petitioner is in continuous possession. It was further urged that by suppressing this material information about the petitioner/applicant being in actual possession of the suit accommodation, the suit for eviction was filed. Thus, in this factual background, request for impleading the applicant/petitioner was made.