BAIJNATH Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been preferred to this Court against the order dated 11-7-96 passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 576/96 whereby, this Court had allowed the application for impleadment of the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi (non-petitioner No. 1 herein). Before dealing with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners I deem it proper to briefly refer to the background of the case in the context of which S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 576/96 was preferred to this Court, as under :-

(2.) In the said revision petition, the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi had challenged the order dated 24-1-96 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM, Sambhar Lake District Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 76-76 whereby, the petitioner's application for impleadment as a party to the said suit under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC was rejected by the trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner in the aforesaid revision petition was that the suit was filed against Ramdayal (since deceased) and Omprakash by the non-petitioners Baijnath and Smt. Ramjiwani (petitioners in the review petition) wherein they sought the relief of possession, damages and declaration to the effect that the sale deed of the property in question in favour of Ramdayal was not lawfully executed under the sale deed and hence, the said sale deed be declared null and void and inconsequential. During the pendency of the said suit, Ramdayal died. However, the plaintiff non-petitioners namely; Baijnath son of late Shri Dulichand and Smt. Ramjiwani wife of late Shri Dulichand had purposely not impleaded Smt. Ganga Devi who was daughter of late Shri Ramdayal and was a necessary party to the said suit. Admittedly, late Shri Ramdayal and his son Omprakash defendant non-petitioner No. 3 in revision petition were in possession of the disputed shop premises at the time of institution of the suit. After the demise of Ramdayal, the suit continued against sole defendant Omprakash. During the course of hearing of revision petition, it was pointed by the learned Counsel for petitoner Ganga Devi that Smt. Ganga Devi being the daughter of deceased Ramdayal was a necessary party to the suit and non-impleadment of the said applicant-petitioner has seriously prejudiced her rights since it was incumbent upon the non-petitioners i.e. Baijnath and Smt. Ramjiwani plaintiffs in the suit that they ought to have impleaded her as a necessary party being the legal heir of deceased Ramdayal by moving a proper application for her substitution in accordance with Order 22, Rule 2, CPC. Since, this had not been done deliberatley, the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi who was entitled to be brought on the record of the suit and should have been given an opportunity to contest the suit with a view to protect her rights, title and interest in the shop premises in question which was in possession of her father Ramdayal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court was of the opinion that the trial Court had materially erred in not impleading Smt. Ganga Devi as a necessary party to the suit and since no prejudice would have ensued to either parties to the suit if the petitioner was impleaded and thereafter the rights could be determined on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties which aspect the trial Court had not taken into consideration while deciding the suit. I was further of the view that the trial Court could not go into the question of possession without impleading the necessary party to the suit. With the above discussion, this Court vide order dated 11-7-96 allowed the revision and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 24-1-96 passed by the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to implead the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi as a necessary party to the suit and the parties were also directed to appear before the trial Court on 22-7-1996.

(3.) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners-Baijnath and Smt. Ramjiwani who were plaintiff-non-petitioners in the revision petition have come up in review petition before this Court which is now being disposed of by this order.