MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party in a suit for rent and eviction filed by non-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 against non-petitioner No. 5 was rejected by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kota, South), by order dated 4-1-1918. He placed reliance on (1) in arriving at this conclusion. THE petitioner has come up in revision against this order.
(2.) FROM what can be found out from the revision petition and also the order of the court below, it can be said that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property from one Chandra Prakash son of Devi Das. Plaintiffs in the suit are also sons of Devidas by another wife. So, the real dispute appears to be between the four sons of Devidas as to who is the owner of the property and whether Chandra Prakash alone could sell the property to the present petitioner. All these matters do not arise in a suit for rent and ejectment where the only thing that has to be considered is whether the plaintiffs are the landlords of the defendant-non-petitioner. Petitioner's title does not come in anywhere in this case and he cannot be said to be a necessary party. His claim that he is the landlord of the defendant will ultimately involve the question of title Rajasthan authority cited above is fully applicable to the matter. Learned Lower court has not committed any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. After dictating the above the learned counsel for the petitioner (who is on strike, along with other Advocates) submitted a list of authorities and I consider it proper to discuss them here. Order Rule 10 (2) CPC provides that the court may strike out or add parties at any stage of the proceedings, either on the application of a party or suo motu, when the presence of the parties can be said to be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Some of the decision relied upon are: Sant Ram v. Abdul Haq (2), South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S. Sarup Singh (3), Harbans Singh v. E. R. Srinivasan (4), and Sanwar Mal vs. Budh Mal (5 ). These are cases in which persons alleged to be sub-tenants were impleaded as parties to the suit as they were considered to be proper parties. The other decisions cited are, Murlidhar vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samti, Alwar (6), Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (7), Gouri Shanker vs. Jabbar Singh (8), and Khaja Abdul Khader vs. Mahabub Saheb (9 ). They deal with the question of impleading a third party to the suit, but these cases relate to matters where the relief claimed was either declaration and injunction or possession over the property on the basis of title.
(3.) TWO decisions which can be said to be favourable to petitioner are, Vidya Sagar v. Kesho Kumar (10), R. Rulsi v. Hamed Bi (11 ). In Punjab and Haryana case (12), the trial court exercised its discretion in impleading a person, claiming rival title as a party to the suit for eviction, and this discretion was not interfered with by the High Court in revision. In Brij Mohan Lal Bhargave v. Smt. Lila Bai (13), it has been observed that the scope in suits for ejectment is a limited one and the questions which would be involved in such suits between the plaintiffs and the defendants alone need to be decided and the areas could not be widened by the addition of a third party in the suit unless the third party shows a direct and immediate interest in the property involved in the suit. In a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, a third party moved an application for being impleaded as a party contending that the sale made by him was benami, he was not allowed to be impleaped as a party. In Urban Improvement Trust v. Raj Kumari (14), the suit for ejectment was not allowed to be converted into a suit for title by impleading a party claiming title to the property. ;