SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE questions that fall for consideration in this revision is as to whether the plaintiff can be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice? and whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be read as requiring all persons who choose to lay claim to any sort of right, title or interest in respect of the subject of a suit to be made a party?
(2.) THESE questions emerge in the following circumstances: (a) The plaintiff petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for eviction with respect of property in question against the defendant non -petitioner Laxmi Narain (for short the defendant) in the trial Court, in the month of November, 1993. The defendant submitted written statement stating therein that the plaintiff executed agreement to sell in favour of Ram Kishore Malhotra on September, 17, 1993 in respect of the property in question and the defendant on October, 9, 1993 handed over possession of the said property to Ram Kishore Malhotra as per the directions of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff unnecessarily instituted the suit against the defendant whereas Ram Kishore Malhotra was the necessary party in the suit. (b) Ram Kishore Malhotra thereafter moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the allegations that he took the possession of the shop in question from Laxmi Narain on October 9, 1993 in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated September 17, 1993 executed by the plaintiff. For the specific performance of the said agreement he already instituted a suit against the plaintiff in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City. Though the plaintiff had knowledge of the said suit yet the plaintiff did not implead him as party in the suit. If he is not impleaded as party, his rights would be affected by the decree to be passed in, the suit. He was a necessary party in the suit therefore he be allowed to join as defendant in the suit. (c) The learned trial Court allowed the application and impleaded Ram Kishore Malhotra as defendant in the suit vide order dated December 6, 1995. The said order has been questioned by the plaintiff by filing this revision. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Counsel vehemently contended that the trial Court committed jurisdictional error in allowing the application of Ram Kishore Malhotra moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Suit for eviction cannot be converted as suit for declaration of title. The scope of eviction suit can not be enlarged. Reliance was place on the following authorities, (i) Laxmi Narain v. The District Judge, Fatehpur and Ors. : AIR1992All119 (ii) Achalal v. Surendra Kumar 1988 (2) RLW 314 (iii) Barkat Ali v. Smt. Rukhsana 1992 WLN (UC) 607).
(3.) MR . Z.A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand supported the order of the court below and placed reliance on Smt. Dhan Bai v. Pheroz Shah 1970 RLW 94.;