Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - (1.) Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists.
(2.) The present revision has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Muzaffar Nagar on Application No.86ka under Order I Rule 10 CPC in SCC Suit No.08 of 2013 (Bala Ji Builders & Ors. Vs. 82nd (Bayasi) Uttar Pradesh Vahini NCC Muzaffarnagar & Anr. in terms of which the impleadment application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
(3.) Record of the case reflects that the revisionists had sought impleadment in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents (first set) against the defendant-respondents (second set) for eviction and arrears of rent, on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed on 13.02.1980. It is not disputed that with regard to the title sought to be asserted by the revisionists on the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, original suits i.e. O.S. No.1058 of 2008 and O.S. No.839 of 2006 are pending. Taking notice of the aforementioned facts and the well settled principle of law that questions of title sought to be raised by a third party cannot be gone into in an eviction suit which is essentially a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, the trial court has rejected the impleadment application filed by the revisionist after observing that the title which the revisionist seeks to assert would be subject to the result of the original suits which are admittedly pending, and the decree which may be passed in the small cause suit would have no bearing on the question of title which was sought to be asserted.;