RAMANAND GUPTA Vs. BANKEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed by the intervener -petitioner challenging order dated 10.5.2001 by which learned Subordinate Judge, 1, Barh (Patna) rejected his petition for being added as a party to Title Suit No. 02. of 1999.

(2.) THE aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 against defendants -Opposite Party 2nd Set for specific performance of contract for sale dated 24.1.1996 executed by Late Pashupati Nath Sah, the father of defendants, in favour of plaintiff, with respect to the suit property. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants -opposite party 2nd set claiming the said agreement for sale to. be forged and fabricated, created only for the purpose of defeating Title Eviction Suit No. 06 of 1998 which was filed by the petitioner for eviction of plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 from the suit premises and hence, the suit was fit to be dismissed. On 11.10.1999 the petitioner filed an intervention petition in the title suit under the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party to the suit claiming that he was the owner of the suit premises and his title was decided in a decree dated 19.5.1998 passed in Title Suit No. 76 of 1997, whereafter he filed Eviction Suit No. 06 of 1998 for eviction of opposite party no. 1, who was his tenant in the suit premises and that only to defeat the said eviction suit, opposite party no. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 02 of 1999 against opposite party 2nd Set, although neither they or their father, who is alleged to have executed the agreement for sale, had any title over the suit property, nor they had any right to execute any agreement for sale with respect to the said property, nor even the father of opposite party 2nd Set had, in fact, executed any such agreement, in favour of opposite party no. 1.

(3.) THE plaintiff -opposite party no. 1 contested the said petition of the intervener in the court below and filed a rejoinder praying to reject the same on various grounds. The learned court below considering the entire matter in detail rejected the intervention petition of the petitioner by its impugned order dated 10.512001 holding that the case laws relied upon by the intervener -petitioner were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the intervener, being stranger to the contract, is neither a necessary party, nor a proper party and thus, is not entitled to join as a party to the suit.