MANAKLAL Vs. GANGA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-petitioner No. 2 has not been served. A short point of controversy is involved between the petitioner and non-petitioners therefore, on the request of both the parties, matter is heard finally.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 4th May, 2001 by which the applicant was impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It was stated in the application by the applicant that disputed land is Government land and is the land of the way and the applicant will be adversely affected by the decision of the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trial court after considering the facts of the case allowed the application of the applicant. The petitioner has challenged the above order dated 4th May, 2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the non-petitioner should not have been impleaded as party in the suit because admittedly the applicant is neither owner of the property nor defend any title or interest in the property and it is also submitted that the applicant is totally unconnected with the controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Girdhari Lal Vs. Nagar Parishad reported in 1987 (2) RLR 462 = 1988 (1) RLW 75. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this court has taken a view that a party cannot be impleaded just because of reason that party feels that he will be in position to defend the suit in better manner than the Municipality. In this case of Girdhari Lal (supra) this court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of impleading party and according to learned counsel for the petitioner the same is situation in this case also.