- (1.) THIS is a civil revision directed against an order, dated 28th December, 1967, of the Senior Subordinate Judge. Narnaul. Dismissing the application of the petitioner, Banarsi Dass, under Order 1 Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code, for being impleaded as a defendant in Suit No. 326 instituted by Panna Lal and Banwari Lal against Smt. Chameli.
(2.) SHRI Banarsi Dass had instituted suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at narnaul for specific performance of a contract of sale against Smt. Chameli, widow of Udha Ram. During the pendency of that suit, Panna Lal and Banwari Lal instituted the aforesaid Suit No. 326, dated 18th November, 1967, against Smt. Chameli for a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over a Chabutra 41/2sq. ft. in area, shown in the map annexed to the plaint. In the alternative , they prayed for possession of that property. In his application under Order 1, Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code, Banarsi dass alleged that this Chabutra was a part of the property, which was the subject mater of hi suit for specific performance of contract against Smt. Chameli. He further averred that the suit brought by Panna Lal and Banwari Lal against Smt. Chameli was collusive, and Smt. Chameli, confessing judgment in that case, wanted to defeat his suit for specific performance. In short, it was urged that the decision in the suit brought by Panna Lal and Banwari Lal would incidentally affect his claim against Smt. Chameli. The subordinate Judge dismissed the petition, holding that Banarsi Dass was neither a necessary nor a proper party to be added as a defendant in the suit instituted by Panna Lal and another. He, therefore, dismissed his application.
(3.) THE first question to be considered, is, whether this revision petition against an order dismissing an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, is maintainable. There is divergence of judicial opinion on this point. Some of the high Courts have held that no revision lies against such an order. But the weight of authority seems to be in support of the view that the High Court can interfere in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if it finds that there is some material irregularity or illegality in the order. Though the point was not directly discussed this view is implicit in the decisions of this court reported as AIR 1951 Punj 352, and 1968-70 Pun LR 98. The observations in AIR 1926 PC 142 also lend uproot to that view. I would, therefore, answer this question in the affirmative.;