SMT. MARI @ MADI Vs. MATADIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 23, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, whereby written statement filed by defendant-respondent No. 2 was ordered to be treated as the written statement of the defendant-petitioner as well and the suit was posted for rebuttal evidence and arguments.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 22 Kanals 17 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Farrukh Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The averments of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 were that the land in dispute had been given by him on licence to Chhutan son of Maman resident of Farrukh Nagar for rendering services to the Dharamshala and for running a "Piao' (water-serving place). After the death of Chhutan, according to the stand of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Rajesh, defendant-respondent No. 1 had taken possession of the land in an illegal manner. The plaintiff, in order to avoid further complication, terminated the licence of defendant-respondent No. 2 only. The suit was resisted by defendant-respondent No. 2 on the plea that the defendant-petitioner had already acquired occupancy rights in the suit land and for that reason suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was also pleaded by the defendant-respondent No. 2 that under a Civil Court decree in the suit titled Smt. Mari and another Vs. Matadin , relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit had been upheld by the Court. The defendant- petitioner Smt. Mari had also filed a suit for declaration claiming herself to be an occupancy tenant of the land in dispute and the same was decreed. It was also pleaded by the defendant-respondent No. 2 Rajesh that he and defendant-petitioner Smt. Mari are the legal heirs of said Chhutan.

(3.) In view of the above stand of the defendant-respondent No. 2 plaintiff- respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code') in order to implead the defendant-petitioner as a party-defendant. This application was allowed by the trial Court and the case was adjourned to April 23, 2001 for filing of written statement by the defendant-petitioner. On April 23, 2001, the trial Judge, on the request of counsel for the defendant-petitioner, directed that the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent No. 2 Rajesh be treated as the written statement of the defendant-petitioner Smt. Mari and adjourned the case to May 14, 2001 for rebuttal evidence and arguments.