KUSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. TETAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.5.2000 passed by the Munsif, Supaul in Title Suit No. 439 of 1991 refusing to implead Shanti Devi as defendant in the Suit.

(2.) THERE is a chequered history of the case. The petitioner -plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit by making Shanti Devi as the sole defendant seeking declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and also with a negative declaration that the defendant has got no right, title and interest over the suit land. The cause of action for the suit was for entry of the name of Shanti Devi in the revenue records in respect of the suit land. Shanti Devi filed a written statement stating that she had no interest and right over the suit property rather the Opposite Parties have got the right over the property and a petition was also filed to the effect that those persons, who had been named in the written statement should be added as defendants in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although objection was raised but the same was allowed. Again a petition was filed by Shanti Devi to the effect that as she had no right over the suit property, she should be deleted from the suit. Objection was raised but that was also allowed. Against both these orders, two revision petitions were preferred before this Court and a Bench of this Court vide the order dated 1.10.1997 disposed of both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision No. 1278 of 1997 and Civil Revision No. 1300 of 1997 holding that addition of parties would enable the court to completely and effectively decide the controversy but on reading the whole of the order, as con - tained in Annexure -3, it does not appear that the learned single judge had applied his mind in respect of deletion of the name of Shanti Devi from the Suit although that was challenged in the Civil revision petition. Perhaps the matter was not placed in its proper prospective.

(3.) ON the face of the records it appears that the plaintiff had filed the suit on the cause of action that although he is in peaceful possession over the suit property but the name of Shanti Devi was appearing in the revenue records and as such towns survey khata could not be operated in the name of the plaintiff and as such cloud has been created in the title and interest of the plaintiff. In that way practically the suit was against Shanti Devi alone but then the court below had allowed the Opposite Parties to be impleaded in the Suit and then also held that inclusion of those parties may lead the court below to effectively decide the dispute. But I have already mentioned that for the deletion of the name of Shanti Devi from arraying of the defendants was not considered or the order itself does not show application of judicial mind regarding the deletion matter of Shanti Devi. When the cause of action relates to the appearance of the name of Shanti Devi in the revenue records then definitely Shanti Devi is a necessary party in the suit and practically the suit was filed in that form initially. Supposing that the deletion order passed by the court below earlier was right at that point of time then also when the plaintiff -petitioner came up with the petition that being emboldened with the earlier order of deletion, Shanti Devi is creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff then definitely she becomes a necessary party in the Suit.