SUBH RAM Vs. NITYA NAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition has been directed against the order of the trial Court, dismissing an application for impleading Subh Ram (who, according to the counsel for the petitioner, has wrongly been described to be Shish Ram in the order of the trial Court) as plaintiff to the suit. The application was filed on the ground that Nitya Nand has sold the land in dispute by registered sale deed dated 31.5.1988 with well and a pumping set in favour of the applicant. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner-applicant wanted to be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit. The application having been dismissed by the impugned order, the applicant has come up in revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client having purchased the property in dispute from the original plaintiff, there is hardly any interest left with the plaintiff in pursuing the suit and therefore, the applicant is a necessary party or a proper party to be impleaded as a plaintiff. It has been further argued that the original plaintiff did not file reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code in brief) and therefore, the applicant should have been brought as plaintiff in the suit so that his interest as a vendee from Nitya Nand plaintiff could be protected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the plaintiff has not purchased pumping set and therefore, he can neither be described to be necessary nor a proper party within the ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. He has also argued that the applicant's aim is to prolong the litigation by coming as the plaintiff.

(3.) Having given my consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The applicant having purchased all the rights in the disputed land from Nitya Nand, original plaintiff, he is definitely a necessary or in any case a proper party within the meaning and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. It appears that Nitya Nand is no longer interested in pursuing the suit and it is for this precise reason that he has not cared to reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.