RAJKUMAR BARAIYA Vs. VIRENDRA BAPAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner's father namely Late Shri Laxmi Chand Baraiya was tenant of the plaintiff and was carrying on business in the name of Firm M/s Motilal Laxmi Chand Baraiya. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction of the shop against the brother of the petitioner. Written statement has been filed by Heeralal Baraiya/respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a necessary and proper party and is in possession of the shop and carrying on business from the tenanted premises, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the suit. The reply was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to the said application. Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner's father Late Shri Laxmi Chand Baraiya had executed a registered will dated 27/07/1965 in which the right in the business has also been given to the petitioner. The document is a registered will and more than 30 years old document. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments rejected the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC without considering the fact that petitioner is in possession and carrying on business and is a necessary party, therefore, the petitioner has no other alternative but to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.