PUSHPA DEVI Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid three revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Revision No. 805/99

(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31. 3. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 84/84 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the respondent No. 2 was made party to that suit as defendant No. 2.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 with some delay, but the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) in his impugned order dated 31. 3. 1999 had given cogent reasons for impleading the respondent No. 2 as party-defendant No. 2 to that suit as according to him, the presence of the respondent No. 2 (added party) before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually nd completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.