TANSUKHLAL Vs. VINITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have been aggrieved on account of rejection of the application presented by them in view of provisions of O.1 R.10 CPC. The order which is under challenge revolves around a typical circumstance of facts involved around the controversy in context with an ancestral house of which three brothers happen to be the owners. The said house was to be divided between three brothers, therefore, on account of family adjustment one brother namely Rajmal was satisfied by remaining two brothers by giving him a different property. The ancestral house was left for being partitioned amongst remaining brothers. Both the brothers were in physical possession of two separable portions of the house initially and were sharing common passage commonly as joint owners. It appears from the facts mentioned in the argument that some part of said property was transferred by opp. 1, Smt. Vinita during the pendency of the suit, and, therefore, the parties are now at contest before the trial court. O.1. R.10 provides - -

(2.) THE transactions are complicated and the allegations made against each other are also touching the core of the controversy in issue. Therefore, this petition will have to be decided guardedly so as to see that anything observed here would not affect rights of contensting parties in the trial court.

(3.) WHILE dealing with a revision petition in view of provisions of S.115 of CPC, the courts has to keep it in mind that though the order under challenge may not be suitable to the taste of the higher court, it needs to be maintained if the trial court has passed said order by remaining in four corners of its jurisdiction. The revisional court should not allow the parties to anticipate the problems which may arise in future. It is to be kept in view that transactions which are ab initio illegal, will have to be examined in its proper perspective. What is illegal ab initio would be illegal for ever. Keeping in view the complications involved between the parties, by freak actions alleged or, may be, in fact should be left to be decided by the trial court which has to perform the duty of deciding the suit, after trial. The trial court should be left with the discretion to come to conclusion as to which is necessary party to be impleaded in the suit for finding out the truth for the purpose of adjudication of issues in controversy, without eclipsing its jurisdiction on anticipation of averments. By additions of parties which are not compulsively necessary, there is possibility of widening of dimensions of the issues in controversy and that may give rise to multiplication of issues to be adjudicated. The trial court should be always left to concentrate on the relevant issues in controversy. The tendency of increasing the dimensions of the suit and the issues in controversy should always be restricted. Multiplication of the issues in controversy should be avoided as far as possible by finding out the core of controversy and focusing attention on it so as to find out the root of the dispute which is to be adjudicated. Therefore, according to me provisions of S.151 have been brought in force. The trial court has kept that in view and has rightly decided to reject said application and prayer made by the petitioners. This court does not want to interfere with it and does not want to state anything more about the quality and weight of the rival contention of the parties at this stage so as to pollute the discretion of the court while conducting the trial and deciding said suit.