ASHA RANI Vs. LALJIT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This is a revision directed against the order dated March 5, 1991 passed by Sub Judge III Class, Ludhiana, rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff/revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') which was filed on Aug. 31, 1990. The plaintiff/revisionist had filed a suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction and also for possession in respect of the land in dispute. The suit originally was filed against Laljit and Tikan Kumar. By means of the present application under Order 1 rule 10 read with Order 6 rule 17 of the Code, the plaintiff/revisionist wanted to implead Mukesh Kumar as defendant No. 3 and an amendment in the plaint.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the application merely on the ground that the plaintiff/revisionist had not filed any other document to prove the construction made by Mukesh Kumar. This was wholly an irrelevant consideration. While disposing of an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code for impleading a person as a party, the question which the trial Court was called upon to adjudicate was whether Mukesh Kumar was a necessary or proper party in the suit in order to finally adjudicate upon the rights of parties or not

(3.) In reply to application filed by the plaintiff/revisionist for an ad interim injunction in the suit, in paragraph No. 2, the defendants No. 1 and 2 had categorically averred that plot No. 7 is owned by Mukesh Kumar brother of the defendants. It was further averred that defendants had raised construction over plots No. 3 and 7 jointly with their brother Mukesh Kumar.