Decided on July 24,1954

SOHAN SINGH Respondents


RAMABHADRAN,J.C. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order impleading certain persons as parties to the suit under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(2), Civil P. C. The former State of Bilaspur brought a suit for possession of certain lands and houses on the ground that the defendant was in possession illegally. One of the grounds taken by the defendant in his written statement was that certain necessary parties had been left out. Thereupon a specific issue in this regard was framed by the Subordinate Judge, who came to the conclusion that certain persons, who were , vitally interested in the result of the suit, had been left out. Consequently, he directed the plaintiff to implead these persons as defendants.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the view of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous and that the muafl grant in favour of the persons, now ordered to be impleaded, was resumed by the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur, on 14 8 1951. It is, therefore, contended that the order of the Subordinate Judge should be vacated. Notwithstanding the above order of the Chief Commissioner, the Subordinate Judge felt that these persons ought to be impleaded. As the learned 'Subordinate Judge has pointed out the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, confer a wide discretion on the Court to implead any person, whose presence it may consider necessary to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Subordinate Judge's order was without jurisdiction or that he acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity. Even if the matter on merits has been decided wrongly by the Subordinate Judge, it cannot be said that he acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In this connection I may cite ' Lalla Ram V. Naresh Chand', AIR 1952 Him P and Bilaspur 28 (A), where my learned predecessor observed as follows: "The arriving at a conclusion or decision is a mental operation and the Court cannot be said to be acting in so coming to a conclusion or decision on a question of law or of fact; and so far as arriving at a conclusion or decision is concerned, whether the lower appellate Court decides the questions rightly or wrongly it has jurisdiction to do so, and even if it decides wrongly it cannot be said to have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction." The result is that no case is made out for Interference, in revision, at this stage. I accordingly reject the revision petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.