J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated October 7, 1988, whereby the application filed by the sons of the Plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.
(2.) SHRIMATI Pushpinder alias Babli wife of Krishan Chand, filed the suit for the grant of the maintenance in forma pauperis; requisite permission for which was granted. During the pendency of the suit, Neeru Bala and Kuldip Kumar, minors, under the guardianship of their grandfather moved an application for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they were living with their grandfather; they were necessary parties and that they were entitled to the grant of the maintenance from the agricultural land of their father Krishan Chand. That application was opposed by the Plaintiff on the ground that they wire not necessary parties. Hukam Chand, their grandfather, had no locus standi to file the application as such an application should have been filed either by the Defendant Krishan Chand, being their father. Moreover, the children were living with the grandfather and, therefore, the question of grant of maintenance as such to them did not arise. In any case they could file a separate suit, if so liked. By impleading them as parties to the suit under the guardianship of their grandfather, her suit will be unnecessarily delayed. The trial Court dismissed the said application with the observations that a person cannot be added as a Defendant merely because he would be incidentally effected by the judgment. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that since the charge is likely to be created on the land belonging to their father in case the Plaintiff's suit for maintenance is decreed, the rights of the minors will be also affected and, therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification for interfering with the impugned order in the revisional jurisidiction.;