Subh Ram vs Nitya Nand and Others

N.C. Jain, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order of the trial Court, dismissing an application for impleading Subh Ram (who, according to the counsel for the petitioner, has wrongly been described to be Shish Ram in the order of the trial Court) as plaintiff to the suit. The application was filed on the ground that Nitya Nand has sold the land in dispute by registered sale deed dated 31.5.1988 with well and a pumping set in favour of the applicant. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner-applicant wanted to be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit. The application having been dismissed by the impugned order, the applicant has come up in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client having purchased the property in dispute from the original plaintiff, there is hardly any interest left with the plaintiff in pursuing the suit and therefore, the applicant is a necessary party or a proper party to be impleaded as a plaintiff. It has been further argued that the original plaintiff did not file reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (the Code in brief) and therefore, the applicant should have been brought as plaintiff in the suit so that his interest as a vendee from Nitya Nand plaintiff could be protected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 has argued that the plaintiff has not purchased pumping set and therefore, he can neither be described to be necessary nor a proper party within the ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. He has also argued that the applicant''s aim is to prolong the litigation by coming as the plaintiff.

Having given my consideration to the entire matter, 1 am of the view that there is merit in the contention of the learned for the petitioner. The applicant having purchased all the rights in the disputed land from Nitya Nand, original plaintiff, he is definitely a necessary or in any case a proper party within the meaning and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 of the code, it appears that Nitya Nand is no longer interested in pursuing the suit and it is for this precise reason that he has not cared to reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.

As regards the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, the interests of the opposite party can well as safe-guarded by observing that all the pleas available to them, would be available to them during trial. If the suit of the petitioner can be defeated on any point that the sale deed by Nitya Nand does not cover the disputed property, the trial Court would be at liberty to go into all such questions which can legitimately defeat the suit of the original plaintiff. So far as the delay part is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the entire evidence led by the plaintiff would be read as part of the evidence on the judicial file and that his client only, would step into the witness box. In view of this statement there is not chance of prolonging of the suit.

In the light of the observations made above, Civil Revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner is allowed to the impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit. The suit would be finally decided by the trial Court within a period of four months from today. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on the 22nd of December, 1989. No costs.