(1.) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the appellate authority, Sangrur whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") was dismissed. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision may be noticed. Charanjit Singh son of Jang Singh filed a rent petition against tenant Ajit Lal. The said petition was contested by filing a reply by the tenant. The Rent Controller vide order dated 23.3.2004 accepted the petition on the ground of non-payment. The tenant filed an appeal against the ejectment order dated 23.3.2004 before the appellate authority, Sangrur. During the pendency of the said appeal, applicant Jagjit Singh son of Jang Singh (brother of Charanjit Singh) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as a party. The appellate authority vide order dated 15.12.2004 dismissed the said application holding that the applicant was not a necessary party. Hence, the present revision petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that the applicant was a co-sharer with his brother Charanjit Singh and, therefore, he was proper and necessary party and the appellate authority had erred in declining the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.
(3.) Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that in case the applicant had any right, he could file a separate suit. However, denying the applicant-petitioner being a co-sharer, it was submitted that it was collusion between the applicant and the tenant and the applicant was neither a proper nor necessary party. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of the appellate authority:--