KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. SHIV RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against the order dated December 12, 1980 of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur by which he dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.

(2.) THE plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1, who is the landlord, instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against defendant non -petitioner No. 2, who is the tenant. The ejectment was sought in respect of shop No. 5 on various grounds. On February 26, 1980, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner stating that he is a Sub -tenant and for completely and affect -ually determining the question involved in the suit, his presence is necessary and as such, being a necessary party, he should be impleaded as a party to the suit. The material averments, contained in para 2 of the application, are as under. The learned Additional Munsif held that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff and dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The petitioner got the Rule issued praying that his application should be allowed and he should be impleaded as a party to the suit. On behalf of non -petitioner No. 1, Mr. G.R. Singhvi has appeared. He has produced the copy of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, which has been placed on record.

(3.) THE question that, therefore, arises for determination is whether the petitioner is a proper party to the suit and so he should be impleaded as a party even against the wishes of the plaintiff.