RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.9.2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner canvassed that Bhura, Manna, Hanuman, Jeevan, Sudha and others are the khatedar tenants of land in question, who executed the Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner Rameshwar Prasad. They are the principal owners of the property and they are equally bound by sale of the property executed by the petitioner being the power of attorney holder in favour of the respondent Nana Devi. LEARNED counsel further canvassed that under Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, even if the agent enters into a contract, then the principal is liable for the acts of agent in person. The principal is a necessary party in the suit, hence the learned trial court ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner and permitted him to implead the khatedar tenants of the land as party-defendants. Thus, the impugned order of the learned trial court is arbitrary, which deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) THE impugned order passed by the learned trial court seems to be just and apt. It is not found to have suffered from any infirmity and thus, the learned trial court is found to have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.