SAMBHA Vs. DESRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNJE , A.J.C. 1. One Dasru brought a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of the fields in question against defendants Dewaji and Rama. The applicants wanted to join in the suit and applied to be made defendants thereto on the ground that they were members of a joint Hindu family along with the defendants and were interested in the said field. The lower Court dismissed their application as in its opinion the applicants were not necessary parties to the suit.

(2.) THE applicants have now come up in revision and challenge the order of the lower Court. They thus seek revision of a mere interlocutory order. Section 115, Civil P.C., allows a revision when a case has been decided by a Subordinate Court and where there is no remedy by way of appeal. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in the Full Bench case reported in Lalchand Mangal Sen v. Behari Lal Mehr Chand A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 425 and the case in Equitable Trust Co. v. Muhammad Halim and Co. and hold that the applicants here have no "case decided" which they can seek to revise under Section 115. Again it is rmt the practice of High Courts to allow revision of interlocutory orders which under Section 105 Civil P.C., could be questioned in appeal Mati Lal Lyall v. Premi Lyall . The practice of this Court has also been the same and interference in revision is allowed in such cases only when great injustice or inconvenience would otherwise result. The only inconvenience that is sought to be avoided in this case is a possibility of multiplicity of proceedings. In my opinion this is not enough to call for an extraordinary interference. For these reasons I decline to interfere in revision and dismiss the application without notice to the opposite party.