KRISHAN LAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Krishan Lal petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, on 11.5.2001. Hence, this revision.

(2.) I have heard Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.L. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate for respondent No.2.

(3.) The parties to the suit and the present petitioner are real brothers. They are the sons of Hari Chand. Rajinder Kumar -plaintiff (now respondent) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Vishal Dhingra from interfering and excluding the joint possession in the premises and also restraining him from making any deal on behalf of the firm without his permission, Krishan Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that he is owner and in joint possession of the entire machinery and in the business of Vishal Dhingra, the plaintiff is also owner and in joint possession of 1/4th share of the factory known as M/s Vishal Auto Industries, Hissar Road Rohtak, and this fact is obviously mentioned in the suit titled as "Vishal Dhingra v/s. Hari Chand Dhingra and Ors." pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak. In addition to this property, the applicant is also owner and in joint possession of the entire property which is the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, he is necessary party for the just decision of the case, he being the owner and in joint possession thereof.