CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mostt. Shyampati Devi vs Mostt. Lalita Devi and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 5 July 2002 · Citation: (2002) 3 PLJR 515

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nagendra Rai, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 528 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 206 words

Nagendra Rai, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the opposite parties on repeated calls.

2.

This revision application is directed against the order dated 25.4.2000, by which the Court below in a suit for eviction has allowed the petition under Order1, Rule 10 of the CPC filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 7, Mohan Kumar for adding him as Defendant in the suit.

3.

The suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for eviction against the tenant-opposite parties. In that suit the Opposite Party No. 7 claimed title in himself and made a prayer for his addition as a party-Defendant in the suit, which has been allowed by the Court below.

4.

In a suit for eviction the question of title between two claimants cannot be gone into. The Court has to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant for deciding the question of eviction. The intervenor is not necessary party in the suit.

5.

Thus, the Court below has committed error in allowing the prayer of Opposite Party No. 7, especially when the evidence has already started in the suit.

6.

In the result, this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.