This petition is directed against order dated 21.12.2013 in I.A.No.774 of 2011 in O.S. No.375 of 2010 whereby the court below seems to have allowed I.A. No.774 of 2011 and directed that the 6th defendant may be impleaded. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, he had filed detailed objection to the petition by which the 6th defendant sought to get herself impleaded, pointing out that, she had no interest in the present suit and she had already instituted a suit on the basis of an agreement which she claimed was in her favour and in pursuance of which she was put in possession of the property. She had no interest in common and if got herself impleaded in the present suit, it will only complicate the matter.
3. At any rate, the learned counsel points out that, the court below should have considered the matter on merits and should have passed a speaking order in the light of the fact that there was strong objection from the side of the petitioner against her impleading.
4. It must at once be noticed that, the civil revision petition may not be maintainable in view of the proviso under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, under such circumstances, it has been held that, this court will be justified in taking the petition as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if it is seen that there are jurisdictional errors committed by the court below.
5. The order impugned is a laconic order and does not contain the reasons as to why 6th defendant was allowed to be impleaded or why 6th defendant is found to be an essential party to the suit.
6. One fails to understand, what the court below mean by an 'essential party' and that the petitioner herein is also an essential party to the suit. The C.P.C. uses only 'necessary party' and 'proper party' and not 'essential party'. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in the submission that the court below had not considered the matter properly and a proper order has not been passed. Order does not specify the reason which prompted the court below to allow the petition especially in view of the objection said to have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.
For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to lower court to pass fresh orders on I.A. No.774 of 2011 after hearing both sides in accordance with law.
AMV/18/10/ Sd/-
(P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE