V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) APPLICANT Smt. Sarwari Begum, who is plaintiff in ' Original Suit No. 63 of 1985 instituted by her in the court of Civil Judge, Aligarh in which Abdul Mukim and Smt. Amina Begum were impleaded by her as defendants, has approached this Court for relief against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on October 7, 1985. By this order, the learned Judge permitted some persons to be impleaded as defendants in the suit after the court had verified the compromise between the plaintiff and the two defendants. The court below felt that, inasmuch as, the applicants for impleadment claim a share in the property in suit, they should be permitted to be impleaded so that complete justice may be done in the matter.
(2.) THE revision was filed in this Court with considerable delay. In the application made under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff-applicant has explained the reasons why she could not approach the court earlier. THE parties who have been permitted to be impleaded as defendants in the suit by the impugned order, have appeared in this Court. THEy have opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. Sri Pankaj Misra, appearing for the plaintiff-applicant, who has argued the case with ability, urged that it was open to this court, if it was otherwise satisfied, to exercise revisional powers suo motu irrespective of the fact that the applicant had approached this Court beyond the period of limitation. He has placed reliance upon the decisions in Katragadda China Ramayya v. Chiruvella Venkanraju, AIR 1954 Madras 864 ; Ramchandra v. Pannalal, AIR 1954 Rajasthan 191 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdharilal Sapru, AIR 1981 SC 1169 in this regard. The plea, on merits, put forward by Sri Misra, is that it was open to the plaintiff to implead such persons as defendants in a suit as she likes and no one could be forced upon her as a defendant in her suit for the decree passed in the suit will not be binding upon the person who is left out. Reliance, in support of this plea, was placed by Sri Misra, on the decisions in Mt. Bindru v. Sada Ram, AIR 1960 Jammu & Kashmir 67 ; M/s. Jayashree Chemicals Ltd. v. K. Venkataratnam, AIR 1975 Orissa 86 and Gonsalo De Filomena Luis v. Inacio Piedade Hildeberte Fernandes, AIR 1977 Goa 4. Exercise of power under section 115 CPC is discretionary. The jurisdiction exercised under this provision is equitable in nature. It is settled that even if an order, which is under challenge in a revision, is totally without jurisdiction, the court may decline to interfere with it if it promotes justice. In the present case, the persons who have been permitted to be impleaded as defendants in the suit under the impugned order, are claiming to be co-sharers in the suit property. Their grievance was that they were intentionally left out and the plaintiff, in collusion with the two defendants impleaded by her in the suit, were trying to appropriate the property unto themselves under the compromise which was filed soon after the institution of the suit. Sri S. U. Khan, who has appeared on behalf of the persons who have been permitted to be impleaded under the impugned order, has shown to the court a copy of the will said to be executed by the original owner of the property, namely, Kalim Ullah, who, admittedly, was the common ancestor of all the parties to the suit, including those who have been permitted to be impleaded by the impugned order. Not only the plaintiff but also the two defendants impleaded by her and the persons who have been permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the court below have, ostensibly, acquired shares in the property under that Will. In these circumstances, the order of the court below permitted some of the co-sharers to be impleaded as defendants in the suit appears to be pre-eminently just. I am not inclined, therefore, to interfere with it. It is, however, made clear that this non-interference will not absolve the parties of the obligation of proving their case in accordance with law.
(3.) BEFORE closing the judgment, I may notice the submission, made by Sri Pankaj Misra with some emphasis, that impleadment could not be permitted by the court below after it had verified the compromise. I may only observe that assuming the court below was in error in doing so, the fact remains that the order passed by it promotes justice and I am not inclined to interfere with it, as already observed. The revision stands finally disposed of at this very stage. The parties shall bear their own costs.;