Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, has been laid against the order dt. 03.12.2007, passed by the Court of Debt Relief and Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Neemkathana whereby an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved at the instance of one Vikram has been allowed in proceedings taken by the petitioner, Anchi against one Bansi Ram (since deceased and now represented through LR his wife Smt. Chimli) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtness Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1957'). The facts of the case are that the petitioner as the applicant moved an application under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1957 against one Bansi Ram. In the proceedings taken by the petitioner, one Vikram moved an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. On the said application coming up before the trial Court, the trial Court noted the fact that in another proceeding before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Neemkathana, vide order dt. 11.05.2007 the civil Court had held that the applicant Vikram had been bequeathed both his movable and immovable property (entire estate) under the will dt. 09.07.2000. In these circumstances, the trial Court found that Vikram was a necessary party in the suit in which relief prayed was recovery of certain amount lent by Late Tota Ram to Late Bansi Ram.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the applicant in the proceedings under the Act of 1957 was dominus litus and no third party could be allowed to intervene in the suit filed by her. It is submitted that the petitioner has a right to lay proceedings as per her choice and claimed relief against any party and the suit as laid cannot be disrupted and its nature altered by the impleadment of a stranger. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order dt. 03.12.2007 and also taken into consideration the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
(3.) ORDER 1 Rule 10(2) CPC inter alia provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application for the purpose, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added as a party in the suit. In the facts obtaining in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was re -claiming part of Late Tota Ram's estate against Bansi Lal (since deceased and now represented by his wife Smt. Chimli) as the legal heir/representative of Late Tota Ram. In the facts obtaining before the trial Court, in terms of a will dt. 09.07.2000, Late Tota Ram had bequeathed his entire estate comprised of both his moveable and immoveable assets to Vikram. The said will dt. 09.07.2000 had been recognized and upheld by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Neemkathana under its order dt. 11.05.2007. Consequently, there was enough material before the trial Court to conclude that right of recovery of dues including the outstanding amount against Bansi Lal (represented through his wife Smt. Chimli) was prima facie vested in the applicant Vikram. In these circumstances, in a suit for recovery of debt due by Late Bansi Lal to Late Tota Ram which debt constituted part of the estate of the deceased Tota Ram, the trial Court in the exercise of its power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has not committed any perversity or misdirection in law in allowing the impleadment of Vikram. It cannot be doubted that the impleadment of Vikram in the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1957 would facilitate the trial Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the issue of recovery of debt to the rightful owner. Consequently, I find no force in the petition. The same stands dismissed.;