Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 17.11.2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur dismissed the petitioners' application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, wherein they prayed to implead them as party defendants.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in the suit, took me through the observations made by the learned trial Court and contended that the learned trial Court had categorically observed that in the suit of eviction, the question of ownership with regard to the suit premises was not required to be adjudicated. The Court had to simply see the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants to be of the landlord and tenant, hence, from no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can be said to be the necessary party in the suit. Learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also canvassed that one criminal case was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, and the police, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet, which has been pending trial. n case, the question of ownership is decided by the learned trial Court, it may affect the criminal proceedings adversely. Hence, the petitioners are not the necessary parties and they should not be allowed to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant provisions of law as also the impugned order, it goes without saying that the question of ownership is not required to determined in the case of suit for eviction. Learned trial Court has unequivocally observed in the suit for eviction, that the question of ownership is not required to be adjudicated. The Court has also rightly observed that in case the plaintiffs fail to establish themselves to be the landlord, the suit shall automatically fail but in the case of suit of eviction except the landlord and the tenant, no third person can be allowed to be a party in the suit. The petitioners have come forward with this averment that they had sold the disputed premises to the respondent No.3 Om Prakash Soni but this fact is already under challenge and one criminal case for this offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC has already been pending in the Court, hence, from no stretch of imagination, the petitioners in the instant case can be said to be the necessary parties and their impleadment as party defendants is not required for the just decision of the suit. Learned trial Court is found to have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and the findings of the learned trial Court are based on pure findings of the facts. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised just with a view to upset the pure findings of facts. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be totally perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice.
(3.) IN view of above, the writ petition being bereft of any merits deserves 5 to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed, accordingly.;