SHANTI BAI Vs. INDIRA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in his revision petition has challenged the order of the trial Court thereby it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. Her suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for possession is pending. During the pendency of the suit the non -applicant No. 1 alienated the property by way of exchange and got land measuring 1.359 of survey No. 264/5. The land in dispute has gone to Vijay Prakash Mathur S/o Ramcharan Mathur. As such, it was prayed that he be impleaded as party in the capacity of defendant in the suit and plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint averments.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court has rejected the application. It is a settled principle of law that the Court should make effort to cut short the litigation and not to increase the litigation. It appears from the impugned order itself that the land in question has been transferred to Vijay Prakash Mathur and in exchange thereto the non -applicant has received the land above described. Therefore, in the above circumstances if Vijay Prakash Mathur is allowed to be impleaded as defendant, he will have the right to defend his act and the judgment that may be passed ultimately will govern the rights of Vijay Prakash Mathur as well. Learned trial Court as such committed legal error in not allowing the application and not permitting Vijay Prakash Mathur to be made a party as defendant. The impleadment of Shri Vijay Prakash Mathur shall curtail the further legal complication and the litigation that may arise. The paramount consideration before the Court ought to do justice.