Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 24 of 2019 Revisionist :- Prem Chand And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Satendra Kumar Tiwari And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rishikesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.
The instant revision is directed against an order dated 05.12.2018, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the revisionist seeking impleadment in a suit for injunction filed by the respondent against the State has been rejected.
Although, the revision is belated and is supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the interest of justice, the delay is being condoned without issuing any notice to the respondents.
On the merits of the revision, an impleadment application has been rejected on the ground that the State alone is a necessary party in the suit because the dispute therein relates to property which is admittedly evacuee property. The case of the revisionists was that there was no valid transfer of the evacuee property by the custodian in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest.
Be that as it may, the revisionists admittedly, are mere tenants of the property in question. The dispute, if any, in the suit may involve an issue of title between the plaintiff and the State- respondents.
The applicants-revisionists are therefore, not necessary parties in the suit and the application has rightly been rejected.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that they may not be necessary parties but they are proper parties and, therefore, they were liable to be impleaded in the suit as defendants.
In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in Richard Lee Vs. Girish Soni and another, 2017 (135) RD 569.
In my considered opinion, the judgment cited is clearly distinguishable on facts. Therein, the proceedings were eviction proceedings before the rent controller, which were against a partnership firm. The Apex Court held that the partners of the partnership firm would be proper parties in the proceedings and, therefore, permitted their impleadment.
The revisionists in the instant case are not the partners of any firm, against which the suit has been filed. It is a suit for permanent injunction against the State authorities. Under the circumstances, no benefit can be granted to the revisionist on the basis of the judgment cited.
In view of the foregoing discussion and since admittedly the revisionists are not necessary parties, neither they are found to be proper parties on the basis of the judgment cited, the revision is wholly without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Mayank Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2019.05.31 09:57:23 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad