High CourtsSingle Bench

Sohan Lal vs XIth Additional District Judge

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 November 2004 · Citation: (2005) 1 ARC 13

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikram Nath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44016 of 2000
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

5 paragraphs · 432 words

Vikram Nath, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by Judge Small Causes Court Ghaziabad and the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a defendant in the suit has been rejected and the revision against the same has also failed.

2.

Respondent 3 to 5 filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the Respondent 6, which was registered as JSCC No. 106 of 1997. During the pendency of the said suit the petitioner filed an application on 12.10.1998 under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party to the suit. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 3.12.1999. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 6 of 2000, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2000. Against the aforesaid two orders the present petition has been filed for quashing the same and further relief to allow the impleadment application. At the time of issuing notices to the Respondents 3 to 6 vide order dated 30.1.2001 this Court stayed further proceedings in SCC Suit No. 106 of 1997.

3.

I have heard Sri M.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar learned Counsel representing the Respondents 3 to 5 and Amitabh Agarwal holding brief of Sri P.K. Jain for respondent No. 6.

4.

At the very out set the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 Raj Kumar has stated that application for impleadment filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. may be allowed and he may be implead as defendant, so that the hearing of the suit may be expedited which is unnecessarily being delayed due to the interim order passed by this Court. In view of the statement given by Sri Raj Kumar, Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 (Plaintiffs in suit) this writ petition is being allowed. The order dated 3.12.1999 and 10.8.2000 are set aside (Annexure-8 and 10 to the petition) and the application of the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party in the Small Cause Court Suit No. 106 of 1997 pending before Judge Small Causes Court Ghaziabad is allowed. The trial Court will proceed in accordance with law and will make endeavor to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

5.

Accordingly this petition succeeds and is allowed.