SATYAPAL ANEJA Vs. RAJAN KHANNA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 9-11-2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge/Judge, S.C.C. (for short J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2009, whereby the impleadment application (paper no. 72C) moved by respondent no. 3 Krishna Kishore Khanna has been allowed, on the basis of the alleged agreement of tenancy created between the parties.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that during the pendency of the S.C.C. Suit before the learned J.S.C.C., applicant-Krishna Kishore Khanna (respondent no. 3 herein) moved an application with a prayer that he be arrayed as a defendant to the suit, alleging therein that the plaintiff had concealed important facts before the court; that between him and the plaintiff an agreement of tenancy was executed on 1-7-1985 and both the parties put their signatures thereon in token of its execution; that the applicant is tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to receive the rent from him. The applicant also alleged that the premises in question is in his occupation, therefore, if he is not permitted to be impleaded in the suit, his right and interest would be affected.
(3.) The plaintiff filed objection against the application moved by the applicant contending that the application is not legally maintainable; that the applicant has not given full particulars and he is not a necessary party to the suit and that the applicant is not the tenant in the shop in dispute.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.