R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2013 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC which was filed by the respondents No. 2 & 3.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before this Court that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no right over the property in dispute, as the property in dispute are two different properties. Moreover, they happened to be merely encroachers on the land. Thus, they should not have been impleaded as party respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order. and especially Para 5 and 6, clearly reveals that while petitioner -plaintiff has tried to prove that the property in dispute are different properties, and while he has tried to prove that the property could not have been allotted to the respondents, the respondents have also produced a judgment dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 - -a judgment passed upon a compromise entered between Badami Devi and the respondents, whereby Badami Devi has admitted that the possession is with the respondents. The respondents had also submitted the compromise entered between them and Badami Devi. Thus, in Para 6, the learned Judge has clearly noticed that the question as to who is the actual owner of the property in dispute, and the issue whether Badami Devi had a right to sell the property, are issues which need to be decided by the learned trial court. But, considering the fact that the respondents have a judgment in their favour, prima facie, they have made out a case that they have interest in the property in dispute. Relying on two judgments, the learned Judge has correctly held that if a party shows that it has an interest in the property in dispute, the said party should be made a party to the suit. The same view has also recently been taken in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders And Investors Pvt. Limited & Ors. [ : (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 397]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. According to the Apex Court, the test is: "May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights -. Therefore, any person, who has an interest in the property in dispute, any person whose rights would be adversely affected, in case decree were to be granted to the plaintiff, would be a proper party to the suit.;