AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.C. Garg, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.1992 passed by Sub Judge, llnd Class, Garhshankar whereby he ordered the impleadment of Atma Singh and others as defendants in the suit.
Mahant Haridwar Giri Chela Mahant Om Giri filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is the Manager, Mahant and Mohtimim of Samadh Shri Udai Giri known as Dera in village Nadalon, P.S. Mahilpur, District Garhshankar being the Chela and successor of Mahant Om Giri and in possession of the Management and control of the said Dera and the properties attached thereto and is entitled to operate the bank accounts of Sh. Om Giri, is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 4322.20 alongwith interest, lying in saving bank account No. 77 in Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Ajnoha and some amounts lying in other banks.
During the pendency of this suit, Atma Singh and 5 others moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial Court by order dated 28.10.1992 ordered the impleadment as defendants, hence this revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicant-respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and therefore, learned trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in ordering their impleadment. Learned counsel submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 105 dated 28.10.1989, it was held that plaintiff was a heir of Sh. Om Giri and he was also held to be so in proceedings before the Assistant Collector.
On a consideration of the matter, I find that it is correct that the petitioner was impleaded as heir of Om Giri, the previous Manager of Dera, but he was impleaded and brought on record in place of Om Giri, on an application moved by under him Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decision given on that application is not the final decision on the point that the applicant is a Chela and, therefore, Mohtimim of the Dera in question. This order was passed obviously for continuing the proceedings in that appeal. Reference in that behalf can be made to the case of Mohinder Kaur and Another Vs. Piara Singh and Others, .
Again, petitioner was allowed to appeal before the Assistant Collector on behalf of the Dera, but these are summary proceedings for the purpose of maintaining the revenue record. On the strength of the orders passed by the Revenue Officer, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been accepted to be the Manager of the Dera either by way of appointment by Sheikh or as a Chela of Om Giri under custom. It was perhaps in this situation petitioner himself filed a suit for declaration that he is Manager and Mohtimim of the Samadh of Sh. Udai Giri known as Dera in village Nadalon. The applicants are either the residents of village Nadalon or an adjoining village Panjaura, who have faith in the Dera. To me it appears that the question involved in the suit is as to whether the petitioner is the Mohtimim of the Dera or not. Once that is so, the residents of the village have interest therein and have rightly been impleaded as defendants. Even otherwise, petitioner in no way suffers by impleadment of these respondents, and the order, if allowed to stand, will not violate the principles of natural justice or occasion a failure of justice.
For the reasons recorded, this petition fails and is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that anything said herein would not affect the merits of the pending suit and same shall be disposed of on its own merits. Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 13.9.1998 for further proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.