RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. MUKHTYAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Bharat-pur dated 15-11-1977, whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner No. 4 Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner Himmat Singh filed a suit for declaration that the suit property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint belonged to him and a sale-deed made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. It has further been prayed that the possession of the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff from the defendants. One Shri Mohanlal alleging himself to be a Pujari of Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. G, for impleading Shri Satya Sahib Biraj-man Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher as a party in the suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to the applicant and was in his possession and that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit property nor was in possession. It was further pleaded that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendants and in case any decree would be passed it would seriously affect the interest of the applicant Both the plaintiff as well as the defen~ dants contested the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 4 and also denied that the applicant had any right or possession over the suit property and that Mohanlal was neither the manager nor Pujari of non- petitioner No. 4. The learned trial court by its impugned order allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 4 and impleaded him as a party in the suit. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the defendant Ramesh Chandra has come in revision before this court.

(3.) Mr. Kejariwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the trial court committed a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in impleading the non-petitioner as a party in the suit inasmuch as the non- petitioner No. 4 was claiming a right in the property independently and adversely to the interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. A person who is coming forward on the basis of a title independently in his own right cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It is further submitted that by impleading the non-petitioner No. 4 as a party in the suit the scope of enquiry of the present suit will be entirely changed and such person cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. Mr. Soral appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non-petitioner has also supported the contentions raised by Mr, Kejariwal.