MT. LADI AGARWALLANI AND ANR. Vs. KEOLRAJ SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an appellate order of the Subordinate Judge of Gauhati who reversed an order of the learned Munsif of Gauhati refusing temporary injunction in a suit brought by Keolraj Sethi, the opposite party in this rule in the Court of the Munsif at Gauhati challenging the validity of a decree passed against a third party, in Title Suit No. 209 of 1948 which was brought by the petitioner Musst. Ladi Agarwallani and another asking for eviction of Pritham -chand Malik and others. It is necessary to refer in short to the facts of this case with a view to understand the present proceeding.

(2.) MT . Ladi Agarwallani and another brought Title Suit No. 209 of 1948 against Pritham Chand and others for eviction from a residential house which was alleged to have been leased out to them on or about the year 1931. The suit for eviction was brought after due notice alleging that the plaintiffs wanted the house for themselves and that the defendants had failed to pay the rent regularly. The decree in that suit was resisted on two grounds, namely, that there was no bona fide necessity of the house for the plaintiffs and that the notice was bad in law inasmuch as the house was being utilised for a manufacturing purpose and six months' notice was due under the law whereas a shorter notice had been served on the defendants to vacate the house by 30 -7 -1948.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge unfortunately developed a story of his own on the basis of a single statement made by one of the defendants in the earlier suit in the course of his deposition that Keolraj Sethi was a partner in the Malik Soap Factory and therefrom he deduced that Keolraj was a necessary party in the earlier suit. There was no such finding in the original suit itself and it is beyond my comprehension how the learned Subordinate Judge could make an observation here that the earlier suit was defective for not framing an issue as to whether Keolraj was a necessary party unless the point was raised in the pleading. That the decree was defective or that he has a right to stay in the premises will have to be proved by Keolraj himself in the present suit if he so desires. The learned Judge though refers casually to have perused the judgment of the High Court, it does not appear from his judgment that he took pains to understand it or the facts of the earlier case as found. He even fails to take note of the facts stated in the Munsiff's judgment from which the appeal was preferred to his Court.