SATYAN MAHAJAN Vs. R.C. KATYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has called in question the order of the learned Sub Judge, Jammu dated 01.06.2016 passed in civil suit titled Satyan Mahajan v. R.C. Katyal, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, seeking their impleadment as party defendants in the suit.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner in any manner or forcibly dispossessing him from the premises taken by the petitioner on rent from respondent No. 1. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit, the suit premises came to be sold by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stepped into the shoes of respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 after purchasing the suit property filed an application in terms of Order-I Rule-10 CPC seeking their impleadment as party defendants in the suit so that they could watch their interest and contest the suit properly. Said application appears to have been opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the suit has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 alone, who at the relevant point of time was threatening the petitioner to dispossess him otherwise than in due course of law and the petitioner had no cause of action against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The application was considered by the trial Court and vide order impugned respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were allowed to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order impugned primarily on the ground that the suit pending before the trial Court is a suit for injunction, which is based on the cause of action, which had accrued to the petitioner on account of his threatened dispossession by respondent No. 1 alone, therefore, there was no cause as against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.