RAJ PAUL Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order dated 17 -01 -1997 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jammu up -holding the order dated 26 -08 -1995 of the Munsiff, Jammu whereby the application of the vendees filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed directing their impleadment as party plaintiff to contest the suit filed by the landlord against the tenant defendant -petitioners herein.

(2.) THE point of controversy involved in the petition for consideration is, whether the suit is filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenants can be permitted to be continued by the successors -in -interest of the landlord under Order 22 Rule.

(3.) THE petitioners are the tenants and respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the original landlord Dwarka Nath. By virtue of Sale Deeds dated 20 -01 -1994 and 3 -7 -1994 registered on 4 -7 -1994 the respondents 6 to 9 have purchased the property subject matter of dispute. The respondents 6 to 9 filed an application on 23 -08 -1994 under order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to continue and prosecute the suit on the grounds already taken by the ex -landlord being assignee and the property being transferred to them alongwith interests therein. The plaintiffs filed the suit on 29 -09 -1975 seeking eviction of the defendants, petitioners 1 and 2 and respondent 10 herein, which came to be dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu on 21 -10 -1980 holding the suit being not maintainable. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge Jammu which was accepted holding the suit being maintainable by an order dated 29 -04 -1981 and remanded the case to the trial -court for adjudication. The defendant petitioners herein approached the High Court in Second Appeal which was dismissed up -holding the judgment of the 1st appellate court by an order dated April 2,1992. During the currency of the suit two shops subject -matter of the dispute were purchased by the respondents No. 6 to 9 and filed an application on 23 -08 -1994 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC before the trial court to continue and contest the suit. The trial court accepted the application and allowed the respondents 6 to 9 to be impleaded as co -plaintiffs in the suit by an order dated 26 -08 -1995. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Sec 43 CPC against the order of learned Munsiff, Jammu which came to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Jammu, by an order dated 17 -01 -1997 up -holding the order of the Munsiff. The petitioners have approached this court in revision petition on the ground that the suit of the original landlord cannot be permitted to be continued on the grounds of rebuilding of the shops, comparative advantage and sub -letting.