- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar dated 22nd April, 1975, whereby he allowed an application of the respondent No. 4 Prabhatilal under Order 1, Rule 10, c. P. C. , end ordered that he be implead-ed as defendant No. 4 in the suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that Murlidhar plaintiff filed a suit against Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Alwar and its President and Secretary for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Parbhati Lal defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order 1, rule 10, C. P. C. praying that he should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit as his interest is vitally involved and that his presence would enable the Court to completely and finally adjudicate upon all the points involved in the suit. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application on 22nd April, 1975. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition before this Court.
(3.) ON behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, it was contended that in a suit for permanent injunction the question of title of one shop inter se between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 could not be decided in this suit and the suit for injunction would, thus, ultimately be converted into a suit for title. It was, therefore, contended that the learned Civil Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application. It was further contended that in a suit for permanent injunction, defendant No. 4 is not a necessary party. If for argument's sake it is assumed that the defendant No. 4 was a necessary party, then the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. It was, therefore, contended that by impleading defendant No. 4 intricate questions of title inter se between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 would have to be decided while the suit for permanent injunction could possibly be disposed of on the question of possession alone. Reliance was placed on Syed Wazir Ali v. Syed Wali, 1968 Raj lw 324, Hussain v. Shafi Mohammed, 1969 WLN 316, Ramnarain v. Nandlal, 1970 Raj LW 277 and Deputy Commissioner v. Rama Krishna, AIR 1958 SC 521.;