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
3 paragraphs · 338 wordsRajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.4.2012, passed by the trial court whereby application filed by respondents No. 2 to 4 for impleadment as defendants in the suit has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, respondents No. 2 to 4 have no right or interest in the property. Their presence before the court is neither necessary nor they are proper parties. Trial court has, thus, gravely erred in allowing the application.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that plaintiff has sought partition of joint property. Applicants being brother/sisters of plaintiff have 1/5th share each in the suit property. Thus, their presence before the court is necessary for proper adjudication of the mater.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A suit for partition by way of possession and permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Ravi Kumar. During the pendency of the suit, instant application was moved by applicants with the plea that they had right to 1/5th share each in the suit property. The controversy could not be resolved in their absence. The suit was resisted by the defendants with the plea that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had executed a registered Will in his life time in favour of plaintiff and defendant (respondent No. 1 herein). According to said registered Will, one property was given to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Thus, applicants have no right to contest in respect of same. Trial court has, however, allowed the application as it felt that presence of applicants was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. I do not find any infirmity with the order. Undoubtedly, plaintiff is dominus litus, but in case the trial court feels that presence of certain party is necessary to enable it to completely and effectually adjudicate upon the issue, it may implead such party. The revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
