Nagendra Pd. Singh and Another vs Mohammad Salim and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. No one Appellant on behalf of the opposite party in Spite of the notices having been duly served in them. Plaintiffs are the Petitioners in the civil revision application, who have challenged the order, dated 25.6.91 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 33 of 1989 by where opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 have been ordered by the learned Munsif, Danapur to added as party Defendants to the said in terms of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for every against the Defendants-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of personal necessity and default. It is admitted position that during the pendency of the suit, Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written-statement, but Withdrew themselves from the suit and opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 appeared and prayed to the Court by filing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC for being added as party Defendants In the suit, which was allowed. Virtually by allowing the petition filed by opposite party Nos. 3 to 8, the Court below has converted the said simple suit for eviction into a complicated title suit, which cannot be allowed. The intervenor-Defendants 3 to 8 may file a separate suit for declaration of title and for eviction against their tenants. So far as the prayer of the intervenor-Defendants 3 to 8 for adding them as party in the title eviction suit filed by the Plaintiffs Petitioners for eviction of their tenants is concerned that cannot be allowed, because it will completely change the nature of the simple suit for eviction into a complicated title suit. Accordingly, the order, dated 25.6.91, is hereby set aside. This civil revision is, thus, allowed. However, the Defendant-opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 may file a separate suit for redressal of their grievances, if so advised.