Kuldip Mahton vs Musammat Patia and Others

Ross, J.—The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 applied before the Munsif to be added as defendants in a rent suit brought by the petitioner against the recorded tenants on the ground that they had purchased the holding. The petitioner objected to having these defendants forced upon him, but the learned Munsif was of opinion that as the opposite parties Nos. 8 and 4 were entered in the khatian as being in possession they should be made defendants and an issue on the point of their recognition should be tried. The learned Vakil for the petitioner relies upon two decisions of this Court, namely, Satyadeva Sahay and Others Vs. Mt. Jhamel Kuer and Others, and Gananath Satpathy v. Harihar Pandhi 48 Ind. Cas. 359 : (1918) Pat. 289 : 5 P.L.W. 232. It is argued on the other side that there is no question of jurisdiction involved, and reliance is placed on the decision in a similar case in Sarju Mahton and Others Vs. Mt. Bibi Bersatan and Others, . Order I, Rule 10, Clause (2) gives the Court power to add as plaintiff or defendant any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, and that there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case. Now the question at issue was a simple question of rent and the recorded tenants were, sued. The addition of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 involves the determination of a complicated question of recognition which is not appropriate for decision in a rent suit. In my opinion, the addition of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 was not the addition of any such party as the Munsif was empowered to add under Order I, Rule 10 and bis order was without jurisdiction.

The application must be allowed, and the order of the Munsif set aside. The petitioner is entitled to costs; hearing-fee one gold mohur.