High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Amarwati & others v. Shri Pradeep Kumar Rastogi & others - CIVIL REVISION No. 33 of 2007  RD-AH 1722 (2 February 2007)
Court No. 24
Civil Revision No. 33 of 2007
Smt. Amarwati & others Vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Rastogi & others
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra and Sri Sanjeev Singh Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
By the order impugned, the court below has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of respondent No. 1 as a party defendant in the suit. The revisionists/plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 2 to 16 to restrain them from damaging the shop on the ground floor in which they are the tenants because the damage would also prove adverse and harmful to the building on the first floor which is under the occupation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the present suit have claimed their ownership also in the disputed shop. The third party respondent No.1 came with the prayer under order I Rule 10 C.P.C. stating that it is he and not the plaintiffs who are owners and landlords of the disputed shop. Therefore, in order to counter the plaintiffs' claim in the present suit, he should be made a party defendant.
The court below in the aforesaid light of the cases taken by the parties, has been of the view that the third party respondent No.1 is a proper party to the suit and, therefore, his impleadment should be permitted.
The learned counsel appearing for the revisionists submits that since this is a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, the impleadment of a third party against whom no relief is sought is required under law and the court below has committed illegality in accepting the prayer of respondent No. 1.
I do not agree with the submissions made from the side of the respondents. The petitioners-revisionists in addition to claiming the relief of permanent injunction against respondents No. 2 to 16 have come with specific case of their being the owners and landlords of the disputed shop. Obviously while adjudicating upon the plaintiffs' claim for grant of relief of permanent injunction, the court has to go into the details of their title and find out if they are owners and landlord of the said disputed property. The third party respondent No. 1 since also claims to be the owner of the disputed property, it is quite obvious that he should be afforded an opportunity to counter the plaintiffs' claim of title in the said property. He is, therefore, at least a proper party to this suit also which is only for the grant of relief of permanent injunction. In this view of the matter the court below has granted plaintiff-respondent's prayer for his impleadment. The order appears to be wholly justified and no error in the same can be found out occasioning interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
The revision is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.