PANJUM BIBI @ RAMJAN BIBI Vs. NAJMA ALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Learned Single Judge in OJC No. 8900 of 1998 by which the application for impleadment filed by the Respondent No. 1, Najma Alim has been allowed reversing the order passed by the Learned District Judge in Civil Revision No. 75 of 1996 and confirming the order of the Trial Court dated 1.11.1996.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as follows: The Plaintiffs -Appellants filed Suit No. 54 of 1994 claiming themselves to be the owner of the suit property with a prayer for eviction of the tenant -sole Defendant therefrom on various grounds. During the course of trial Respondent No. 1, Najma Alim, filed an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'CPC') claiming herself to have acquired title by way of registered sale deed from the original owner of the said property and further alleging that the suit proceedings were collusive just to acquire title over the property. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide Order Dated 1.11.1996 directing addition of the said applicant as Defendant No. 2 in the suit. The said order was reversed by the Learned District Judge in Civil Revision No. 75 of 1996 observing that the suit for eviction being a lis between the landlord and the tenant, a third person could not be a necessary party. The said revisional order was challenged in a Writ Petition and the Learned Single Judge has reversed the same and confirmed the order of the Trial Court by the aforesaid Judgment and Order Dated 2.11.2004. Hence this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri B. Routray, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has contended that the suit itself is collusive as the Plaintiffs - Appellants want a declaration of tile in their favour and once such declaration is made it will cause prejudice to Respondent No. 1 who is the real owner as she has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed from its original owner. He further submitted that Respondent No. 1 is neither stranger nor an outsider and therefore, the application for impleadment has rightly been allowed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.