R.A.SHARMA, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction. The Petitioner moved an application for impleadment on the ground that he is owner of the property in dispute. The trial court allowed the application and the Petitioner was impleaded as a party. Revision filed by the Respondent second set was allowed.
(2.) WHEN property in dispute is claimed by two persons, one of whom has also filed a suit, it is necessary that the other person, who claims to be the owner of the property in dispute, should also be impleaded. The revisional court was not justified in allowing the revision and rejecting the impleadment application. The impleadment of the Petitioner was necessary in order to resolve the controversy regarding property in dispute. It is always desirable that real claimant of the property should be brought on record so that possibility of collusive decree may be eliminated.
(3.) THE petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court is set aside and that of trial court is restored. It is directed that Petitioner be impleaded as one of the Defendants in the suit filed by Respondent No. 2. In view of facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost.;