B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated May 22, 1989, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the applicant Barkat Ali.
(2.) MST . Rukhsana filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against Jabbar from the shop in question. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was moved by Barkat Ali. It was averred in the application that Mst. Rukhsana has filed the suit against Jabbar for eviction on the basis that Jabbar is the tenant of Rukhsana. The suit filed by Rukhsana against Jabbar has been filed by the plaintiff Rukhsana in collusion with Jabbar while Jabbar is the tenant of Barkat Ali, against whom he has filed a suit for eviction and that suit is, also, pending. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Munsif, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the question of ownership of the title of the property is not required to be gone into, the suit is for eviction and only the question whether the defendant is the. tenant of the plaintiff, has to be determined and no relief has been prayed by the plaintiff against the applicant Barkat Ali and, therefore, he is not a necessary party to the proceeding. The learned Munsif, therefore, dismissed the application filed by the applicant Barkat Ali. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as he has already filed a suit against Jabbar with respect to the same property on the ground that the shop in question was given on rent to Jabbar by him and he is his tenant and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;