GORDHAN DASS Vs. TILAK CHAND AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that Identical Issues arise in Civil Revisions Nos. 1602 of 1974 and 1603 of 1974 and, therefore, this order shall govern both of them.

(2.) It sufficies to make a brief reference to the facts in civil revision No. 1602 of 1974. The plaintiff petitioner had brought the suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated in the town of Gurgaon. On behalf of the defendant-respondent, Dr. Trilok Chand Ahuja a preliminary objection was taken in which it was averred that in fact the shop in dispute belonged to Ravi Dass Sabha, Gurgaon, and the plaintiff who was earlier acting as its Manager Land used to realise the rent - was no longer holding that office. It was further pleaded that one Amin Chand had now been appointed as a Manager of the said Ravi Dass Sabha and he in fact was entitled to realise the rent. Subsequently, an application was moved by Amin Chand under order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that he be impleaded as one of the defendants. By its order dated August 26, 1974, the trial court allowed that application and the revision is directed against the same.

(3.) Mr. Roop Chand on behalf of the petitioner has contended that Amin Chand was neither a necessary nor a proper party and that his impleading would entail the setting up of an altogether new case. I am unable to agree. Even on the plea of defendant No. 1, the preliminary issues arising therein were whether the ownership of the shop vested in the Ravi Dass Sabha, Gurgaon, and it so, who was its Manager who would be entitled to recover the rent therefor. It was the case of defendant No. 1 also that Amin Chand was subsequently appointed as the Manager and hence he was entitled to recover the same. The impleading of Amin Chang as a defendant, therefore, does not in any way set up a new case and in fact his position is identical with that taken up by defendant No. 1. The learned trial court in its well-reasoned order has come to a conclusion, and in my opinion rightly, that in order to arrive at a just and effective decision of the case, it was necessary to implead, Amin Chand, No adequate ground for interference within the limited jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, has been made out.