ORDER
1. Heard Sri B. N. Uppadhyaya, holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel representing the opposite party No. 1.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirzapur Suit No. 202 of 1903 against Smt. Phulmati Devi, the defendant-opposite party No. 2, for specific performance of contract of sale of certain agricultural property entered into between them on 8th June, 1903. Sri Hridaya Narain Singh, the applicant in the instant revision, who is husband of the defendant-opposite party No. 2, moved an application for his impleadment to the suit under O.1, R. 10(2) of the Civil P. C., 1988, hereinafter called the Code.
3. The claim of the applicant for being impleaded to the suit was based on the assertion that, in fact, he was the owner of the property which was subject-matter of con-
tract of sale sought to be enforced in the suit; and that Smt. Phulmati Devi, the defendant-opposite party No. 2, was holding the property benami. The application of the applicant for being impleaded as defendant in the suit has been rejected by the Court below by means of its order dt. 2nd Jan., 1988 holding that he is not entitled to be impleaded inasmuch as he is not party to the contract of sale sought to be enforced in the suit; and that if he was the real owner the decree passed in the suit will not bind him; and that as the decree passed in suit without impleading him would not bind him he will not suffer any injury.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, the Court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned order is perfect and sound in law.
5. Otherwise also the plea of the applicant that he was the real owner of the property in question and that the defendant opposite party, Smt. Phulmati Devi, was holding the property benamj cannot entitle him to be impleaded in the suit in view of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 which provides that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. The applicant, therefore, is not such a person who ought to have been joined in the suit as defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all or any question involved in the suit. The Court below was well within its jurisdiction under sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of Or. I of the Code in declining the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded as defendant and did not act either illegally or with any material irregularity.
6. For the foregoing reasons, and in the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of this case, the Court is satisfied that the revision is frivolous and vexatious; and that it has been instituted by the applicant only with the object of obstructing the proceedings in the suit. Indeed, he succeeded also by getting the proceedings of the suit stayed for a period of about six years without any justification. The revision is totally devoid of merit.
7. In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to plaintiff-opposite party No. J, quantified at Rs. 1000/-. The interim order dt. 11th Feb., 1988 shall stand discharged. In view of the fact that the suit was instituted more than ten years ago, it is expedient that it may be disposed of with utmost expediency. The Court below is directed accordingly.
8. Petition dismissed.