KISAN UCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA SAMITI DEORIA Vs. IIIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE DEORIA
LAWS(ALL)-1988-11-9
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 05,1988

KISAN UCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA SAMITI, DEORIA Appellant
VERSUS
IIIRD ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, impugned order dt. 12th Apr., 1988 passed by III Additional Distt. Judge Deoria under O.1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil P.C., 1908 (for short the Code), allowing the revision and directing the plaintiff, the present petitioner to implead Mr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 as one of the defendants, is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) It appears that the petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction against one Mainuddin Khan restraining him from interfering with the function of Sri Arvind Pandey as officiating Principal of the institution. Petitioner No. 3 was acting Head Master whereas Dr. Nazaruddin Ahmad petitioner No. 2 was alleged Manager of Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, and Ram Pravesh Prasad was Adhyaksh of Kisan Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti Banjaria Bazar. It is noticeable that Mainuddin the alleged head master has not been impleaded in the writ petition. As he was asserting himself to be headmaster on the basis of some forged order hence the suit has to be filed. Dr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 made an application under O.1, R.10(2) of Code claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution hence he may be impleaded as a defendant. Petitioners filed objection to that application. The Trial Court rejected the application by order dt. 28-2-1987 (Annexure-4 to the petition). Against that order a revision was filed by the respondent No. 5 which has been allowed by the impugned order, hence present petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that revisional Court has no jurisdiction to impleaded Dr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No.5 as one of the defendants as the petitioners never wanted to implead him as defendant. It is the choice of the plaintiff to implead anybody as defendant and nobody can impose himself against the choice of the plaintiff to be impleaded as party to a suit. Reliance was placed on Sri Mandir Mahadev Prithvinath v. Swami Prakashanand, 1981 0 AllLJ 567.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.