S.S.SODHI,J. - (1.) THE matter here concerns the prayer of a tenant to be transposed as one of the plaintiff-landlords, consequent upon the purchase by him of a part of the property in suit belonging to some plaintiff-landlords.
(2.) A suit of rejectment from vacant land had been filed by a number of plaintiffs claiming to be the owners and landlords of the property in suit against various persons arrayed as defendant-tenants. The Petitioner-Om Parkash too being a party to the suit having been impleaded as the legal heirs of the tenant-Mumkant Lal. It appears that the petitioner-Om Parkash purchased the share of Santosh Rani and Parveen Kumar plaintiffs in the property in suit. It was thereafter that he filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be substituted as plaintiff in place of the Santosh Rani and Parveen Kumar. No exception can indeed be taken to the impugned order of the trial Court declining this application.
(3.) THE important point to note, at the very outset is that despite having purchased the share of Santosh Rani and Parveen Kumar, the petitioner continues as a tenant on the other part of the land in suit. In other words, he retains his character as a tenant. This being so, the effect of the prayer of the petitioner to be transposed as plaintiff being accepted would be that he, as plaintiff, would have a right and interest in the suit, which would be in conflict with that of his co-plaintiffs and similarly as defendant to with his co-defendant-tenants. Such a situation clearly cannot be countenanced. This would certainly result in an anomalous situation which cannot but prejudicially after the other parties to the suit. Interests of justice too, therefore, clearly stand in the way of the petitioner being granted the relief sought.;