- (1.) A suit No. 261 of 1989 has been instituted by Sita Ram and upon his death, through his legal heirs, asserting that the suit property belongs to Sita Ram, who is the owner in possession of the suit property. It was asserted that the defendants have no authority to remain in possession over the suit property and, therefore, a prayer has been made to dispossess them. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment application has been filed, whereby it has been asserted that the name of Sri Shivji Maharaj has been mutated as the owner of the property and the plaintiffs are its Pujari/Sarvarakar and therefore, in such capacity also, they are entitled to maintain the suit for eviction. The suit is pending since the year 1989 and now an application has been moved under Order I, Rule 10(1) read with Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. with the prayer that Shivji Maharaj, as deity, be permitted to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit through its Sarvarakar i.e., plaintiff No. 1 and the suit be continued at the instance of the deity also. The application has been strongly opposed by the defendants, who have contended that the suit was being contested refuting the plaintiff's claim to be the owner in possession and, therefore, the filing of application for amendment and impleadment is an abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as a contradictory stand has now been sought to be raised with the object of further delaying the disposal of the suit. The Trial Court heard the parties on the application and found that in view of the plaint averments, there was no necessity of impleading Shivji Maharaj through its Sarvarakar as plaintiff No. 2. This order has been challenged in revision, which has also failed. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, the plaintiff-petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the admitted position, emerging on record, it is undisputed to both plaintiffs and defendants that the property belongs to deity and, therefore, its impleadment is necessary. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in case of Laxman Prasad Kanchan v. Kranti Kumar Kanchan and others, 1992 20 AllLR 887, Uma Shanker and another v. P. Rajagopalachari and others,1998 32 AllLR 596 and Kisan Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti and others v. Third Additional District Judge, Deoria and others, 1989 15 AllLR 168, to contend that the powers of the Court to direct impleadment is wide enough and can be exercised, at any stage of the proceedings. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid proposition of law settled by this Court, the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained.
(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and upon examination of the materials relied upon, this Court finds that the suit itself was instituted by Sita Ram, claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit property, for eviction of the defendant. The plaint allegation explain how the defendants were put in possession and also that they have no right to continue. In para-5(A), it has further been asserted that the plaintiff had died on 2.1.2001, leaving behind him a Will, whereby the estate belonging to late Sita Ram, devolved upon his sons who are plaintiff No. 1/1 to 1/3. In para-5(1)(A), it has been stated that next to the house where defendants are residing, their situates a temple in the name of Shivji Maharaj through its Pujari Jiya Lal, Ram Adhar and Pancham Lal, who have been mutated in the revenue records and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to secure dispossession of the defendants, in their capacity as Sarvarakar as well, and that the defendants do not have any right to continue in possession.;