SHRINIVAS RAJENDRA PRASAD (FIRM) Vs. CHANNPMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an order dated 18th of February, 1994, whereby an application filed by the applicant to get himself arrayed as a defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was declined. It is the case of the applicant that on 28th of January, 1980 a mortgage -deed was written. His further case is that on that very day a separate agreement creating a tenancy in his favour was also executed. It is his further case that the mortgage deed was registered on 30th of January, 1980. According to him, he is a necessary party because he is tenant of the property and was inducted on the same day on which mortgage deed was executed. This matter is settled as per statement made by counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has stated that the applicant be permitted to be brought on record as defendant. He has, however, brought to my notice that when the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed the case was at arguments stage and the interest of his client be safeguarded and there should not be unnecessary delay in the final disposal of the suit. I am in agreement with this. In order to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff, it is made clear that the applicant is being permitted to be brought on the record as defendant on the conditions given below: - -

(3.) SHRI R.D. Jain, counsel for the plaintiff has staled that the case was at arguments stage as such, he has rightly contended that the other defendants will not have any right to take any other step.