BIRU SAO Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 8-3-2007 passed by Additional munsif, Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit no. 02 of 1999 whereby he has rejected the petitioner's application purported to have been filed under Article XXII, Rule 10 read with Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. seeking relief to prosecute the suit by adding him as plaintiff No. 2 on the ground, inter alia, that during pendency of the suit he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff-respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts of lie in a narrow compass :-The plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed Eviction suit No. 02 of 1999 against the defendant-respondent no. 1 for a decree of eviction on the alleged ground of default, personal necessity, damage and deterioration in the condition of the suit premises. The said suit was decreed ex parte by terms of judgment dated 20*8-1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff levied Execution Case No. 02 of 1999 for executing the decree of eviction. In the meantime, defendant-respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, c. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree being Misc. Case No. OG of 1999. The said misc. Case was eventually allowed and ex parte decree was set aside on 29-5-2004. In the meantime, the petitioner purchased the suit property from the plaintiff-respondent no. 2 by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 3-5-2002. The original defendant-respondent No. 1 after the ex parte decree was set aside, contested the suit disputing the facts alleged in the plaint. While the suit was pending, petitioner as a purchaser filed an application on 31-5-2006 purported to be under Order XXII, Rule 10 read with Order i, Rule 10, C. P. C. praying for leave of the court to prosecute the suit as co-plaintiff by adding him as plaintiff No. 2. The defendant did not file any rejoinder to the said application. However, after hearing the parties, in terms of the impugned order dated 8-3-2007, the Court below rejected the petition holding that the presence of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy and fur -ther that the provision of Order XXII, Rule 10, C. P. C. is not applicable in the suit.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and, Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the Court below.