LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-325

RASHID MOHD Vs. FAKIR MOHD & ORS

Decided On July 19, 2012
RASHID MOHD Appellant
V/S
Fakir Mohd And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order dated 6.08.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaitaran, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed his application filed under Order 23 Rule 1-A and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for transposing him from the array of respondents to making him a plaintiff in the civil suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff namely Smt. Hajra filed a suit for permanent and mandatory and prohibitory injunction claiming inter alia that she has a residential house. It has been alleged that FloatingFrame FloatingFrame the defendants gave threats to her in order to evict her from the residential house. The present petitioner, defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court, filed written statement to the plaint and admitted all the facts mentioned in the plaint. The defendants Nos. 2 to 8 filed the written statements and denied the averments made in the plaints. During the pendnecy of the plaint, Smt. Hajra died. She let a part of the house in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, he filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1-A read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) and requested the Court to transpose his name from the array of defendants to the plaintiff. The respondents-defendant No.2 to 8 filed replies to the said application. By order dated 06.08.2011, after hearing the parties, the learned Judge rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Bharat Devasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC. However, while passing the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has ignored the existence of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. According to Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, in case the Court is of the opinion that in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, the Court has ample powers to add a person as a party in the suit.