- (1.) HEARD Shri Kshitij Shailendra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicants and Shri Amit Saxena, the learned counsel for O. P. No. 1.
(2.) THE plaintiff-applicants filed a suit claiming that they had a valid lease deed in their favour of plot No. 430, Civil Lines, moradabad, and that, the defendant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are arrayed as o. P. Nos. 2 and 3 in this revision, are interfering in their possession. Consequently, a suit was filed claiming the following reliefs:- "a. That by a permanent injunction defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs residence at 430 Civil Lines, moradabad either themselves or through their authorised persons or nominee or agents or any other person or persons acting for or on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or claiming through them and further promise for transferring of any part of plot no. 430 Civil Lines, Moradabad misrepresenting that they are owner of the said plot. B. That plaintiffs be declared sole lessees to entire plot No. 430 Civil Lines, Moradabad measuring 1464. 60 Sq. Mt. on the basis of whole consideration passed over to the defendant No. 3 by plaintiff No. 1 and further that the names of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were fictitiously entered in the lease deed dated 29-12-89 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Moradabad at Sl. No. 1 Khand 19 page 135/138 and at additional serial No. 9628 and information to that effect be also given to sub registrar, Moradabad and further it may also be declared that any transaction if made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of plot no. 430 Civil Lines, Moradabad shall have no binding on the plaintiffs. "
(3.) SMT. Vandana Agarwal, O. P. No. 1 in this revision, filed an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision has been filed. The trial Court has held that the opposite party was a necessary party and should be impleaded.;