BIMLESH Vs. BED RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2018, whereby the application filed by the respondents for being impleaded as a party in the suit has been allowed.

(2.) Brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner along with the plaintiff-respondent Nos.8 and 9 has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the only legal heirs of deceased- Hema Ram and that the mutation of inheritance is liable to be entered and sanctioned in their favour. The said suit was filed against the general public. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. It was stated in the application that the plaintiffs had wrongly shown themselves as legal heirs of deceased-Hema Ram and that they were actually not related to Hema Ram in any way. It was further stated in the application that the applicants are tenants in possession over the suit land for the last many years and further that the plaintiffs had wrongly got mutation No.1494 qua inheritance of Hema Ram sanctioned in their favour which was later cancelled and the entry of mutation was reverted in the name of Hema Ram. It was also stated in the application that an FIR had been registered against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not joining investigation in that case. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. Vide order dated 14.08.2018, the trial Court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein as defendants. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 ought not to have been impleaded as a party inasmuch as they are not necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all points involved in the suit. It is further contended that the said respondents do not have any direct interest in the subject matter and hence ought not to have been impleaded as a party. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments :-