Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court on 25.02.2003 whereby application filed by respondent No. 3 under Order 1 R.10 (2), C.P.C. was allowed.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Udaipur for eviction and arrears of rent against respondent No. 2 on 15.05.2000. As per the plaint, it is mentioned by the petitioner that she is owner of the property in question because she purchased the same by registered sale -deed on 16.10.1999 and the said property is in occupation of respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, she is entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of default and personal bona fide necessity. In the suit, provisional rent was also determined; thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed application on 04.04.2002 under Order 1 R.10(2), C.P.C. for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff petitioner has not mentioned about the Will executed by late Shri Mangilal Bhatt and she has no right to collect the rent. A detailed reply to the application filed by respondent No. 3 was filed by the petitioner and it was submitted in the reply that the suit is not for determination of right over the property and if respondent claims any ownership or right over the property then he can do so before proper forum for quashing the sale -deed in respect of the property over which she claims right title. It is also submitted that stranger cannot be permitted to be impleaded in the suit. The registered sale -deed dt. 16.10.1999 is also placed on record of the writ petition. It is submitted by the petitioner that the suit filed by the petitioner was for eviction and respondent No. 3 is claiming to be impleaded as plaintiff alongwith the petitioner in the suit which is not permissible under the law because being owner of the property the present petitioner filed suit and the ownership according to the petitioner is established under the sale -deed executed in her favour but the learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, impleaded respondent No. 3 as co -plaintiff in the suit on the basis of the Will produced by respondent No. 3.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is illegal and material irregularity has been committed by the trial Court while allowing application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading him as co -plaintiff in the suit.;