Bhagwant Kumar vs Dina Nath

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a Defendant''s revision petition against the refusal of the trial court to add the Plaintiff''s mother as a Defendant to the suit.

The Respondent brought a suit for possession against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner was a trespasser in the shop owned by the Respondent. The Petitioner filed his written statement admitting the ownership and claiming that he had been inducted as a tenant into the shop by the Respondent''s mother on behalf of the Respondent, to his knowledge and with his consent. It was also asserted that the Respondent had been receiving rent from the Petitioner after fixation of the fair rent by the Rent Controller. After the issues were framed by the trial court, an application was made by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC that Ram Rakhi, mother of the Respondent, should be impleaded as a Defendant. The application was rejected by the trial court on the footing that there was no appropriate plea in the body of the written statement. Thereupon the Petitioner filed an application on June 30, 1973, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for permission to amend the written statement by the addition of a plea that Ram Rakhi was a necessary party to the suit and for the addition of her name as Defendant in the suit. The application was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated October 10, 1973. The Petitioner now prays for relief against that order.

The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that it was belated, that it had been filed two years after the filing of the written statement and it had not been shown why the substance of the amendments could not be included in the written statement when it was filed.

It seems that the amendment application warranted rejection on a more serious ground. And that is, that neither the plea now sought to be added in the body of the written statement nor the addition of Ram Rakhi in the array of parties was relevant for the purpose of effectively and completely deciding the suit. The Petitioner had pleaded in the written statement that he had been inducted in the shop by Ram Rakhi as a tenant to the knowledge and with the prior consent of the Respondent. The question whether that was so would turn upon the evidence pertaining to that issue. For that purpose Ram Rakhi was relevant as a witness only. No relief could be granted either in favour of or against her in the suit. Her presence in the array of parties was wholly unnecessary. In the circumstances I see no reason why this Court should interfere with the order of the trial court.

The revision petition is dismissed with costs, which I assess at Rs. 100.