JAHOOR KHAN Vs. ABDUL RAHOOF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL Rahoof got a PCO booth from Telecom District Manager, Telephone Department, Jodhpur wherein he had the facilities for local dialing as also STD and ISD. While he was, operating that facility for public use, the Telecom District Manager, Jodhpur allotted another similar booth to Jahoor Khan in the same locality and when ABDUL Rahoof came to know of it he filed a suit to challenge the allotment of similar other booth in that locality and impleaded Union of India through Ministry of Tele-communication as defendant No. l and Telecom District Manager, Telephone Department, Shastri Nagar,jodhpur as defendant No. 2 and Jahoor Khan was not impleaded as defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which is supported by an affidavit dated 28th of Sept. 1991 and in that affidavit he mentioned that Jahoor Khan is about to open the PCO booth. This statement is made in para No. 1 of the affidavit. In the affidavit it is mentioned that Jahoor Khan and Anwar Khan are going to open the PCO booth whereas actually the allotment of that booth is only in the name of Jahoor Khan. THE trial court granted ad interim injunction order and when Jahoor Khan came to know of the same and because of that ad interim injunction order he could not open/operate the PCO booth, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party to the suit so that he could oppose the suit as also the grant of ad interim injunction order. That application has been dismissed by Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. l, Jodhpur vide order dated 24th of October, 1991. THE reason given for rejection of the application is that the suit can be effectively decided in the presence of Telecom District Manager and in the absence of Jahoor Khan. It was also observed that the plaintiff is not seeking relief against Jahoor Khan and if Jahoor Khan and Anwar Khan want to seek any relief they may file a separate suit. It was further observed that the applicant has not shown how he will be adversely affected by the orders passed in the suit. Similar unconvincing reasons were given while dismissing the application. This is revision against that order.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, I am of the view that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and erred in law in rejecting the application of Jahoor Khan for being impleaded as a defendant.