GARG, J. - (1.) ALL the aforesaid three revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Revision No. 805/99
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31. 3. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 84/84 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the respondent No. 2 was made party to that suit as defendant No. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:- The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being No. 84/84 for injunction against the respondent No. 1 Urban Improvement Trust (for short "the Trust") alleging inter-alia that she was the owner of the dispute property and the defendant-respondent No. 1 had no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. After nearabout 15 years of filing of that suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 for being impleaded as party in that suit stating inter-alia that the disputed land was going to be allotted to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 Trust through order dated 1. 12. 1983 and thereafter, on 21. 4. 1984, possession of the disputed land was handed over to the respondent No. 2 and therefore, according to the respondent No. 2, he was necessary party to that suit, which was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the respondent No. 1 Trust. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner through impugned order dated 31. 3. 1999 allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC holding inter-alia that through proposal No. 4 of the respondent No. 1 Trust dated 26. 4. 1982, the land in question was to be allotted to the respondent No. 2 (added party) and further, on 24. 4. 1984, the possession of the land in question was also handed over to the respondent No. 2 (added party) and thus, in view of these facts, the learned Addl. Civil Judge came to the conclusion that for deciding the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner, the respondent No. 2 was a necessary party. Aggrieved from the said order dated 31. 3. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner, the plaintiff- petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court on 30. 6. 1999. The main case of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner is that since the suit was filed in the year 1984 and after so many years of filing of that suit, the respondent No. 2 through application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC sought impleadement as party-defendant No. 2 to that suit, therefore, the application was belated one and furthermore, there was no substance in that application and thus, it should have been rejected. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that in view of the amendment made in Section 115 CPC through Amendment Act 46 of 1999, which came into force on 1. 7. 2002, the present revision is not maintainable as the impugned order was interlocutory order as it had not decided the matter finally and thus, this revision has become infructuous and it should be dismissed as such. Apart from this, even on merits, the plaintiff-petitioner has got no case. Hence, it was prayed that the revision filed by the plaintiff- petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and gone through the entire materials available on record.
(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 with some delay, but the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) in his impugned order dated 31. 3. 1999 had given cogent reasons for impleading the respondent No. 2 as party-defendant No. 2 to that suit as according to him, the presence of the respondent No. 2 (added party) before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually nd completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Before proceeding further, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has to be answered. There can be no dispute on the point that in view of the amendment made in Section 115 CPC by amendment Act 46 of 1999 which has become operative from 1. 7. 2002, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has now been materially restricted. The effect of the amendment is that even if the order sought to be impugned suffers from jurisdictional error it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 CPC unless it can be shown and found that if the order impugned would have been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. ;