KAMLABAI Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I, Guna in Civil Suit No.9A/2011 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent No.1 Rajendra Kumar has filed a suit for eviction on the ground that one Smt. Asha Lata Vijaywargiya was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute which was purchased by the respondent No.1 Rajendra Kumar by registered sale deed dated 9.6.1980. Shri Shrikishan Rathore who was the father of respondents No.2 to 6 and the husband of the petitioner was the tenant. After the death of Shri Shrikishan Rathore, except the defendant No.3 namely Jagdish Rathore, all other defendants are in possession of the shop in the capacity of the tenant and they are carrying on the business in the name and style of "Jagdish Electronics". It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that being the widow of Shri Shrikishan Rathore, she is also a necessary party. However, the said application has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order. It appears that earlier the respondents No.2 to 6 had filed an application for impleading the petitioner as the defendants and the said application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 8.6.2014. While rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, it was mentioned by the Trial Court that since the order dated 8.6.2014 has attained finality, therefore, the present application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that being the widow of Shri Shrikishan Rathore, the original tenant, the petitioner is a necessary party and not a formal party.