ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. MOHANLAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party to the suit (T.S. No. 27 of 1997) pending before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Titilagarh, in terms of Order 1. Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') having been turned down by him, and the order of rejection having been upheld in revision by the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) RAM Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff, who was the father of opp. parties 1 to 11, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the suit land by ejecting the defendant Hanuman Prasad Agarwal from the suit house. Description of the suit house is given in the Schedule to the plaint. While the suit was being heard, an application was filed by the present petitioner, styled to be one under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code, with a prayer to implead him as defendant No. 2 in the suit. His stand was that his father Radheshyam Agarwal was a partner in a partnership form along with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal. Late Ram Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff had negotiated with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and Radheshyam Agarwal for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ - and had received a part of the consideration money. That being the position, the father of the petitioner and after his death the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. That, according to the petitioner, was sufficient to make him a necessary party to the suit. Plaintiff filed objection to the petition denying the averment to the effect that the petitioner's father was a partner and/or there was any agreement for sale as contended. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Learned Civil Judge observed that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. The conclusions were affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh in Civil Revision No. 13 of 1997.

(3.) MR . A. K. Nanda, learned counsel for opp. parties 1 to 11, submitted that interestingly Hanuman Prasad Agarwal is not a party in the present writ petition. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the petitioner's father was a partner in any partnership, as claimed, that is of no consequence as the partnership came to an end after the death of the petitioner's father. Therefore, the petitioner was not a necessary party. According to him, the prayer has been rightly rejected, as the sole object for which the application was filed was to prolong the proceeding.