Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are tenants in the suit property, have approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the order dated April 4, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The ground of challenge is that the learned trial Judge has misinterpreted the bar of Order 35 Rule 5 CPC. Before I go to the impugned order, a few facts may be noticed. The petitioners are tenants in the shop constructed in a building standing in Sector 3, GT Road Karnal. These shops were owned by late S. Mohar Singh who inducted the petitioners as tenants. After the death of Mohar Singh disputes arose among his legal heirs including his widow. It is the say of the petitioners that an arrangement was made and settled that the rent due from the petitioners was to be paid to Smt. Parvinder Kaur widow of Mohar Singh through her son Inderpal Singh son of Mohar Singh. However, the petitioners were served with notices by one set of the legal heirs calling upon them to deposit rent in their account. The disputes in the family of Mohar Singh resulted in a suit brought for declaration, partition and rendition of accounts instituted by Inderpal Singh who is the 1st respondent in this petition against two of his brothers and two sisters.
(2.) FEELING threatened by the suit and of not being sure to whom the rent was to be paid and in order to protect their tenancy so that they do not face eviction for non -payment of rent, they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 88 of the CPC in the suit. Section 88 of the CPC deals with interpleader suits and provides situations where such suits can be instituted. Section 88 lays down that where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person, who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such other person may institute a suit of interpleader against all the claimants for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself. Section 88 contains a proviso.
(3.) PROVISO informs that where any suit is pending in which the rights of all parties can properly be decided, no such suit of interpleader shall be instituted.;