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
13 paragraphs · 250 wordsR.K.Gauba, J
The issue raised in the present petition essentially is between the petitioner on one hand and the second respondent on the other, she having been
impleaded as a party to the civil suit instituted by the petitioner, which is pending trial in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, East. In the civil suit, the
petitioner’s case was that the first respondent (the husband of the second respondent) was a tenant. The possession of the demised premises has
already been taken over by the petitioner. The suit survives only for the recovery of mesne profits.
The second respondent has been allowed to be impleaded as the second defendant on her application under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 against the objection taken by the petitioner mainly to the effect that there is no connection between her and the premises in question.
On being asked, the counsel for the second respondent submits that she is the actual tenant in the premises and has been wrongly thrown out. If so,
the second respondent will have to pursue her own remedy as available to her in law. She cannot impose herself on the petitioner in the suit in question
particularly as it survives only for recovery of the mesne profits.
The impugned order is set aside. The application of the second respondent under Order I Rule 10 (CPC) is dismissed.
The petition and the application filed therewith stand disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.