(1.) PETITIONERS 2 to 5 have filed this revision petition under section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the impugned order dated 30.8.96, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 92 -N93, whereby their application filed under Order I Rule 10, seeking their impleading as defendants in the above Civil Suit, was dismissed. Petitioner No. I Radheshyam Sharma has also joined the above petitioners in this revision petition, though he is challenging that part of the impugned order whereby his application filed under section 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking stay of further proceedings in the present suit, was dismissed.
(2.) DURING the course of hearing Shri Ajit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, confirmed his submissions to the dismissal of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10. Non -petitioner No. l/Plaintiff Madan Mohan had filed a suit against non -petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5 : namely Satnam Singh, Kamta Prasad, Sudarshan Kumari, Manoj Kumar and petitioner No. 1 Radheshyam Sharma for permanent injunction and execution of the tenancy agreement. Petitioners 2 to 5, who all are sisters of non -petitioner No.3 Kamta Prasad, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 claiming themselves to be necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff .opposed the above prayer on the ground that his suit as not a title suit and no relief was sought against these four petitioners and, therefore, they were neither necessary pat1ies nor proper party to the suit.
(3.) SHRI Ajit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, as they were necessary parties to the suit. Shri Singh further submitted that these petitioners have the apprehension that their brother Kamta Prasad may join hands with the plaintiff which may result in a collusive decree in regard to the disputed property, wherein the petitioners also claim equal rights.