ORDER B.K. Rathi, J.
1. All these three revisions have been preferred against different orders passed in Original Suit No. 85 of 1999 pending in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur. The revisionist in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001 is the defendant in the suit which was filed by Praveen Kumar, opposite party for dissolution of partnership and accounting.
2. In brief, it is alleged that the business of partnership was being carried on in shop No. 2/521/2-3 situated at Railway Road, Saharanpur under the name and style of Cambridge Book Depot; that the partnership was entered on 18-7-1995.
3. On the request of the opposite party order was passed by the trial Court and an inventory of the articles of the shop was prepared. The shop was also locked and the key of the shop is with the official receiver. The applicant who is defendant in the suit moved an application 195-C under Section 151, CPC alleging that there is no order for appointment of receiver nor there was any or -der for the lock of the shop. He, therefore, prayed that the key of the shop may be got delivered to the applicant so that he may maintain the articles in the shop properly and safely. That application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 13-12-2000. Against that order, Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001 has been preferred.
4. Srt Satpal Singh revisionist of Civil Revision No. 92 of 2001 move an application for his impleadment as party in the suit under Order 1. Rule 10, CPC. It was application No. 79-A. That application was rejected by order dated 13-12-2000. Against that order, Satpal Singh has preferred Civil Revision No. 92 of 2001.
5. Srt Kewal Krishna revisionist of revision No. 164 of 2001 also moved similar application 125-A for impleading him as party. That application has also been rejected by order dated 13-12-2000. Against that order, Kewal Krishna has preferred Civil Revision No. 164 of 2001,
6. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate for the revisionist in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001 and Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party in that revision and Sri U. C. Misra, learned counsel for the revisionsts in Civil Revision No. 92 of 2001 and Civil Revision No. 164 of 2001 in all the three revisions.
7. The revisionists Srt Satpal Singh and Kewal Krishna also moved applications for their impleadment in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001.
8. For the sake of convenience, firstly I consider Revision No. 92 of 2001. Sri Satpal Singh applicant moved an application for impleadment alleging the that he was partner in the business in the disputed shop which was being carried on under the name and style of Cambridge Book Depot. The partnership agreement was entered into with the defendant Sri Chandra Prakash Arora on 2-8-1995, Photocopy of which is Annexure-2 of the affidavit: that it has been signed by him (Satpal Singh) and by Chandra Prakash Arora; that Chandra Prakash Arora was tenant of the shop and there was prohibition of impleading any person as partner in the business as it may amount to sub-letting. Therefore, an application Annexure-1 of the affidavit was moved jointly by him and Chandra Prakash Arora before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under Rule 10{6) proviso (2) of the Rules framed under the Rent Control Act for permission to permit the applicant Satpal Singh as partner in the business: that said application was allowed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer by order dated 2-8-1995, Annexure-5 to the petition. Annexures-3 and 4 are the affidavits filed by the applicant and Sri Chandra Prakash Arora in that matter: that thereafter, in order to participate the business the applicant paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by two cheques regarding which the certificates are Annexure-6 to the affidavit; that the partnership was dissolved on 29-10-1996 and the deed of dissolution between the parties is Annexure-7 to the affidavit; that the accounts of the shop has still not been settled.
9. It has been argued that a collusive suit was filed by Praveen Kumar against Satpal Slngh for dissolution of the partnership and for accounting in order to defeat the claim of Satpal Singh.
10. 1 have considered the arguments. All these papers prima facie show that there was partnership between Chandra Prakash Arora and the applicant Satpal Singh for busines in the disputed shop 2/521/2-3 situated at Railway Road, Saharanpur. The plaintiff Praveen Kumar in the plaint has also alleged that he is partner in the business in the said shop as is apparent from the allegations made in the plaint, Annexure-8. He alleged that partnership was entered on 18-7-1995.
11. From this evidence, it prima facie appears that Satpal Slngh is also partner in the business. There appear to be different partnership deeds regarding the same business in the same shop one between Praveen Kumar plaintiff and Sri Chandra Prakash Arora defendant and other between Chandra Prakash Arora defendant and Satpal Singh. Therefore, it appears that there was some fraud or collusion in this case regarding the partnership business. However, it cannot be decided at this stage as to who committed the fraud or which parties have colluded and it can be decided by the trial Court after the evidence in the case is recorded.
12. Therefore, it is prima facie established by the documents referred to above that Sri Satpal Slngh is also a partner in the business of which the dissolution and accounting have been sought. Therefore, he is necessary party to the suit for complete and effective adjudication of the matter.
13. Opposing the revision, it has been argued that Sri Satpal Singh has already filed suit No. 203 of 1998 for dissolution of partnership and for accounting of the said business in the said shop and his right will be decided in that suit. The copy of the plaint of suit No. 203 of 1998 has been filed. However, it support the case of the revisionist that he is partner in the business. His application for impleadment cannot be rejected because he has filed a separate suit.
14. Considering the arguments I am of the opinion that the application of Satpal Singh for impleading him as party was wrongly rejected by the trial Court and the Civil Revision No. 92 of 2001 is fit to be allowed.
15. As regards, Civil Revision No. 164 of 2001, it is sufficient to say that Sri Kewal Krishna revisionist in his application under Order 1, Rule 10. CPC has mentioned that his sons are partners in the business. He does not claim that he is also a partner in the business. Therefore, Kewal Krishna revisionist of Civil Revision No. 164 of 2001 cannot be impleaded as party in the suit as he has no interest regarding the dispute in the suit. The application of Kewal Krishna was rightly rejected by the trial Court and the revision is also without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Now coming to the Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001. I have already said that in this revision, Sri Satpal Singh and Kewal Krishna have moved applications for impleadlng them as parties. Their applications for impleadlng them as parties was rejected by the trial Court. However, in revision I have found that Satpal Singh is necessary party to the suit and allowed the revision of Satpal Singh, as mentioned above.
17. Therefore, the impugned order in this revision is fit to be set aside with the observation that fresh order may be passed regarding controversy by the trial Court after impleadlng Satpal Singh as party and providing an opportunity to him for hearing and file objections. This revision is, accordingly, liable to be disposed of.
18. In view of the above. Civil Revision No. 164 of 2001 fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. Civil Revision No. 92 of 2001 is allowed and the trial Court is directed to implead Satpal Singh as party in the suit and thereafter to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
20. Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001 is also allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The trial Court is directed to redecide the matter within 2 month after providing an opportunity of hearing and filing objections to Satpal Singh as well beside, the parties of the case.
21. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.