VED KUMAR Vs. RAJ RANI BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed against the order of the Sub Judge IInd Class, Faridabad dated 20th of January, 1992, disallowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party to the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs who are the respondents before me filed a suit against their mother Raj Rani claiming themselves to be owners in possession of a house situated in Ballabgarh. This suit was filed claiming the relief on the basis of a family settlement recorded in January, 1989 during the life time of Shri Giri Raj Singh, the father of the plaintiffs and the husband of the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The case was fixed for arguments when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 3. 8. 1991 was moved by the petitioner seeking to be impleaded as one of the defendants on the ground that Smt. Raj Rani the defendants in the suit had entered into an agreement to mortgage with possession the suit property vide agreement dated 15 10. 1990 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ -. which the petitioner had paid in full. It was prayed by the petitioner that as the defendant had failed to execute the mortgage deed and she was now in collusion with her children seeking to defeat not only his rights to the property but also to swaloow the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-, it was necessary that the petitioner be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. This application was a opposed by the plaintiffs and it was stated that the family settlement had been arrived in the year 1989 during the life time of their father and the defendant had relinquished her rights in respect of the suit property and as such even if she had entered into an agreement with the petitioner it was not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court considered the matter and held that the plaintiffs were dominus litus in the suit and it was upto them to implead any person. It was also held that merely because the person who wanted to be impleaded as a party would be inconvenienced in case he was to file a separate suit was not ground for being so impleaded. The application was accordingly dismissed and the present petition has been filed against that order.

(3.) IT has been urged by Mr. Hari Om Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts as stated it was apparent that the parties in the suit had filed the same in collusion so as to deprive the petitioner of his rights in the property and also of the money which he had paid. It is asserted that if he was called upon to file a separate suit to vindicate his rights it will lead to multiple proceedings which should avoided as has been held by this Court in Smt. Ram Kali v. Shri Ujala, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 553.