MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated May 24, 1989 by which he has dismissed the application of the petitioners moved under Order 1 Rule 10, C. P. C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN the year 1978, the plaintiff Vijay Kumar filed a suit for rent & ejectment against his tenant M/s. Kriparam Ganeshilal (non-petitioner No. 2 ). On the death of the partner Lachhmandas, the firm was dissolved and a new firm was constituted under the name and style on September 2, 1982. IN the old and new firm, only one partner Rambhuj was common. The proceedings in the suit continued. On April 3, 1989, the petitioners moved an application for being impleaded in the suit as defendants on the ground that they are also partners in the existing firm and the rent is being paid by the new firm. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application by its order under revision. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the said application of the petitioners. He further contended that the presence of the petitioners is necessary for the just decision of the suit. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 Vijay Kumar that as per petitioners' case, the suit was filed against the old firm, M/s. Kriparam Ganeshilal (non-petitioner No. 2), the petitioners were not partners in the old firm, the old firm stood dissolved in the year 1982 and the new firm came into existence thereafter. He further contended that the presence of the petitioners is not at all necessary to decide the question involved in the suit. According to the petitioners, the suit has been filed against the old firm. The petitioners were not partners in it, the old firm stood dissolved in the year 1982, the same year the new firm came into existence thereafter and only Rambhuj was partner in both the firms, i. e. , old and new firms. In view of the provisions of Order 30, C. P. C. , it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to have filed the suit in the name of all the partners. It has not been disclosed as to how the presence of the petitioners is necessary in order to enable the Court affec-tually and completely to adjudicate upon & settle all questions involved in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioners became partners of the new firm in the year, 1982 and the present application was moved by them in the year, 1989. The said common partner Shri Rambhuj is the father of the petitioners. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioners may not be aware of the suit. This delay of seven years has not at all been explained.
(3.) UNDER these facts & circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar has acted with material irregularity or illegality in rejecting" the application of the petitioners moved under Order 1 Rule 10, C. P. C. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. .;