Judgment · High Court · 2008

Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioners. Mr.Shambhoo Singh, for the respondents.

Heard learned counsels.

This petition is directed against the order dated 13/1/2006, whereby, the learned trial court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of respondents, who claimed to be tenants of the suit property. The suit has been filed by respondents no.2 and 3 in representative capacity challenging the transfer of the suit property in question to present petitioner-defendant no.4 being the public property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner defendant no.4 submits that the tenants have no right to join the list as parties and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

This submission is opposed by learned counsel for the (1) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5218/2006, (2) S.B.C.W.P. NO. 5410/2006, (3) S.B.C.W.P. NO.5374/2006 (4) S.B.C.W.P.NO.5368/2006 Order dt: 20/11/2008 respondents.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC namely the tenants of the suit property have no separate right to join lis between the plaintiff and defendant about the right of the seller to sell the property in question to the defendant no.4. The suit under representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is being pursued by the plaintiff and tenants have no say in the matter. At the most they may appear as witnesses either on the side of plaintiff or defendant. Therefore, the learned court below has erred in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/1/2006 is quashed and set aside. Record of the case may be sent back to trial court. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI),J. Item nos.27 to 30 baweja/-