Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 against the respondents no. 2 to 5 seeking injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession over the suit property, an application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment on the ground that he is also coowner alongwith plaintiffrespondent no.
1. Trial court allowed the application. However, revisional court vide order dated 8.1.2010 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the trial court on the finding that the petitioner is not being affected by the relief claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants and no relief has been claimed against him.
There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as the plaintiff is dominus litis and since injunction was being claimed against the defendants on the allegations that they were forcibly trying to interfere in his possession and even if, the petitioner is co owner and his rights are not affected nor his presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, as such he is not liable to be impleaded. In view of above, the petition fails and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 3.2.2010 nd