- (1.) This civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the 'Act' is detected against the order dated 10th January 1992, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lalitpur in JSC No. 9 of 1990 between Kranti Kumar and Suresh Kumar Kancban, whereby the application of the applicant and opposite party No. 3 for their impleadment in the suit, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, has been rejected.
(2.) The Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed the suit praying for a decree of ejectment against the Defendant-opposite party no 2 on the basis of alleged landlord-tenant relationship in respect of a shop. The applicant and the opposite party No. 3 filed an application for their impleadment asserting tbat the shop in suit was a joint Hindu Family; property wherein the Plaintiff-opposite-party No. 1 had only one sixth share and they had two third share. According to the applicant and the opposite party No. 3, their presence in the suit was necessary because they also were the co-owners of the property in suit.
(3.) Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the applicant, contends that in view of the fact that the applicant and the opposite party No. 3 also are the co-sharers of the shop in question, the court below acted contrary to law in not ordering their impleadment to the suit.;