G.C. Garg, J. - (1.) DISMISSAL of an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Om Parkash, petitioner, has given rise to the present revision petition.
(2.) IN order to understand the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to notice the following pedigree table : - - Phuman Ram | -| | | Dhira Mal Khushi Ram Shadi Ram | | | - Lachhman Dass Ram Kumar Tej Ram (plaintiff) Ram Gopal (Defendant No. 2) Hari Chand Krishan Kumar (Defendant No. 1) Sohan Lal | Satpal - (Defendants 3 to 7) Roshan Lal (Krishnan Lal Om Parkash (applicant) Lachhman Dass, Plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that there had been a family settlement between the parties and that they have become owners in possession of the properties as detailed in the head note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, Om Parkash son of Hari Chand (defendant No. 1) son of Dhira Mal filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code praying therein that he be impleaded as a party to the suit. The applicant pleaded that he was a necessary party and in his absence the suit could not be decided properly, he having a share in the suit property. This application was opposed.
(3.) TRIAL Court dismissed the application by order dated September 24, 1991. Aggrieved by this order, Om Parkash applicant has filed the present revision petition.;