JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jaipur City directing him to implead Smt. Madan Kanwar as a defendant under Order 1, rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) ON 3rd November, 1951 the plaintiff instituted a suit for possession against Smt. Gobindi Bai on the allegation that she was his tenant of the house in suit but was denying his title. Smt. Gobindi Bai claimed that she was the owner of the house. The suit was ultimately decreed on 31st January, 1956. The first and second appeals against this decree were both dismissed. ON 27th January, 1957 the plaintiff, according to his allegation, took actual possession over the house through court. Ex. 6 is the report of the Nazir in which it is stated that possession was delivered to the plaintiff over the house in suit. It is mentioned specifically in this report that Smt. Madan Kanwar, daughter of Smt. Gobindi Bai was present when the possession was delivered. On 1st December, 1960 the present suit for possession was instituted against Smt. Gobindi Bai by the plaintiff on the allegation that she took forcible possession over the house on 8th November, 1950. The plaintiff again claimed to be the owner of the property and relied on the judgment in the previous suit between the parties. Smt. Gobindi Bai again contested the suit. She again denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed to be the owner of the house. In the alternative she pleaded that she was in adverse possession over it. Issues were framed on 8th October, 1961. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 29th October, 1963 and 17th December, 1963 was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant, but she did not produce her evidence and sought several adjournments. On 14-4-64 Smt. Madan Kanwar moved an application in which she put forward entirely a new case. In the previous litigation Smt. Gobindi Bai was described as the widow of Govind Singh, both by the plaintiff and herself. Smt. Madan Kanwar alleged in her application dated 14th April, 1964 for the first time that Smt. Gobindi Bai was not the widow of Govind Singh but was only his mistress. She alleged that she was the daughter of Govind Singh and was the owner of the house in suit. She said in this application that Govind Singh had died 38 years ago and she was or 5 years old at the time of his death. According to this allegation Govind Singh died in 1926 and she was born in 1921 or 1922. She admitted that she was in possession of the house all the time but alleged that she did not know about the litigation which took place between the plaintiff and Smt. Gobindi Bai till the end of March 1964. Both Smt. Madan Kanwar and her husband Jai Singh filed affidavits in support of her application and were cross-examined by the plaintiff. Smt. Madan Kanwar was confronted with her previous statement dated 27-6-1949 made in a criminal litigation between Smt. Govindi Bai and the plaintiff. She had admitted in that statement that Smt. Gobindi Bai was her mother. She denied having made that statement. Jaisingh had stated in his previous statement in the same criminal litigation that Smt. Gobindi Bai was his mother-in-law. He explained that he described her as his mother-in-law merely because she was the mistress of his father-in-law. Smt. Madan Kanwar asserted that she was born of another woman, who died when she was a chiled of 2 years. She admitted that Smt. Govindi Bai brought her up and has been living with her all along in the house in suit. She also admitted that she has no title deed to prove her title. Some receipts for payment of house tax and water tax have been filed, which are in her name. They relate to a period after the previous litigation between the plaintiff and Smt. Gobindi Bai had commenced. There are some receipts for payment of house tax in the name of her husband Jaisingh for an earlier period. The house tax in Jaipur State was payable either by the owner or by the occupier. Order 1, rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code gives discretion to the Court to implead a person to whom it considers to be a proper party. This discretion has however to be exercised judicially. It is not enough that a person who comes forward to be impleaded as a party makes an assertion of title to the property in suit to entitle him to be impleaded as a party. Before directing a party to be impleaded the court should be satisfied about the bonafides of the applicant, plausibility of his claim and the genuineness of his interest in the litigation. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned there can be no doubt that Smt. Madan Kanwar was aware of the litigation going on between Smt. Gobindi Bai and the plaintiff and her application is grossly belated. She should have applied for being impleaded as a party at an early stage of the suit and not after it had remained pending for over three years. She has not been able to show that prima facie she has a plausible claim. Impleading her as a party would enlarge the scope of the suit. In the present suit the plaintiff relies on the previous judgment between the parties, which is binding on Smt. Gobindi Bai. As against Smt. Madan Kanwar the plaintiff will have to prove his title. The claim which Smt. Madan Kanwar wishes to set up is even hostile to that set up by the existing defendant Smt. Gobindi Bai. The scope of the present suit would therefore be considerably enlarged by impleading Smt. Madan Kanwar. As was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum Vs. Anwar Begum (1), which was referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, the question of addition of parties under R. 10 of O. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. So far as the facts in Razia Begum's case are concerned they are distinguishable. Smt. Razia Begum plaintiff claimed a declaration in that suit that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the second son of Nizam of Hyderabad, and that her three daughters were his legitimate daughters. The admitted wife of the prince and her son applied for being impleaded as parties to the suit. Their Lordships held on the wordings of sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act that they were proper parties as they were interested in denying the legal character which the plaintiff claimed. They further held that in view of the provisions of sec. 43 of the Specific Relief Act the decision in the suit would be binding on the lawfully recognised wife of her son. In these circumstances they held that the order directing the plaintiff to implead them as defendants was a proper one. The addition of a party under O. 1, r. 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code is a procedural matter. The trial court has committed material irregularity in directing the plaintiff to implead Smt. Madan Kanwar as a party to the suit in the circumstances of the present case. This Court has jurisdiction to set aside that order under clause (c) of sec. 115 Civil Procedure Code. I accordingly allow the revision application and set aside the order of the learned Additional Munsif. In the circumstances of the case I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs of the revision application. .;