STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging, inter alia, the order dated 17.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri in T.S. No.46 of 1993-I allowing the application filed by the intervenor under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., the petitioners have filed this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.46 of 1993 in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri for specific performance of contract impleading the petitioners as defendants. During pendency of the suit, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of the area Ac.0.046 dec. appertaining to Plot No.475 and 473/1360 under Khata No.6 in mouza-Balukhanda Khas Mahal. He is in possession of the suit property with house standing thereon as a tenant. On 26.11.1967, he has paid an amount of Rs. 5,001.00 to the defendants. Pursuant to the instruction of the defendants, the Tahasildar had executed an agreement in his favour acknowledging the receipt of money. It is further stated that as per the agreement, it was agreed upon between the parties that in the event the petitioner or any of his nominee would purchase the suit property, an amount of Rs. 5,001.00 is to be adjusted towards consideration. According to him, his presence is necessary for effectual adjudication of the lis. The defendants filed objection challenging the maintainability of the petition. It is stated that the intervenor is the third party and has no locus standi to file the application. Further the petitioner is the husband of the plaintiff and residing in the house jointly. He has filed a separate suit against the defendants. The petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit.

(3.) Learned trial court came to hold that the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the suit land. The petitioner being the husband of the plaintiff is necessary party to the suit and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if he is added as a party. Held so, learned trial court allowed the application on 17.9.2004.