SANJAY SAWNEY Vs. SANTHOSH SAWNEY
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri
Neeraj Garg, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 10 -12 -2007 passed by Judge SCC/Addl. District Judge/2nd F.T.C. Dehradun in SCC Suit
No. 16/2003, Santosh Sawney vs. Sukhdev, whereby the application filed by
the revisionist U/O 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that SCC suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 against
defendant respondent No.2, wherein eviction of the defendant/respondent
No.2 has been sought from the premises in question mentioned in the suit.
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be co -owner and landlady of the
premises in suit. During the pendency of the suit the revisionist filed
an application for impleament in the above suit on the ground that the
property in suit was purchased by his father late Sri Nand Lal Sawney
which was an evacuee property No. 90/91 Dandipur Mohalla Dehradun. Thus
on the basis of conveyance deed he claims himself to be owner of the
premises in question in place of plaintiff -respondent No.1. The learned
Judge SCC placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court
reported in 2000(2) A.R.C. page 308, wherein it has been held -
'Since the question is to be inter se between the plaintiff and
the applicant, it is a question outside the jurisdiction of the Small
Causes Court, such applicant can not be allowed which give rise to a
question of title. By virtue of amendment or addition of parties, the
entire complexion of the suit will be altered changing the nature and
character of the suit between two plaintiffs, which cannot be decided in
a suit for eviction between the plaintiff and defendant -tenants. If there
is a right between the plaintiff and applicant and can be established
through a separate suit before appropriate forum which can decide the
disputed question. Therefore, the application has been rejected rightly.
Thus, on the basis of the objection by the plaintiff, no person can be
added as plaintiff in a suit.
The learned Judge SCC also relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in J.T. 2006 (11) S.C. page 21, wherein in para -17 it
has been held as under -
'In this connection we may also point out that in an eviction
petition filed on the ground of sub -letting and default, the court needs
to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists and not the
question of title to the properties in question which may be incidentally
gone into but can not be decided finally in the eviction proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.