Judgment · High Court

Mr. Abhijeet Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Heard. ORDER Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/1/2012 passed by IX Civil Judge class-I, Indore in civil suit No.100-A/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading one Sodarabai widow of Rajaram, as defendant was dismissed, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Kailash wherein it was prayed that respondent be restrained from raising the construction. The suit was contested by the respondent alleging that in the suit property it is Sodarabai, mother of respondent who is residing. At that stage, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC wherein it was prayed that Sodarabai be impleaded as party. The application was dismissed, against which the present petition has been filed. 2 After hearing the counsel for petitioner at length and keeping in view the fact that learned court below has observed that even if Sodarabai is residing but since she is not raising any construction, therefore she is not a necessary party, this court is of the view that Sodarabai is atleast a proper party. However, since respondent is not before this court, therefore petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner moves a fresh application for impleading Sodarabai as party as respondent has stated that Sodarabai is mother and is residing, then learned court below after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and also to Sodarabai, shall decide the same keeping in view that Sodarabai is atleast a proper party for passing an effective decree. C.c. As per rules. MK (N.K.MODY,J.) 3