Mangal Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Milap Chand Jain, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated May 21, 1985 passed by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 3 Harisingh under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was allowed.

The facts may briefly be stated that the petitioner was the tenant of one Shri Shersingh, who had expired. The respondent No. 3 is one of the sons of the deceased Shersingh. The petitioner moved an application before the City Magistrate Jodhpur for obtaining water connection but his application was rejected and his appeal was also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur as petitioner failed to produce no objection certificate from his landlord. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the suit impleading the State of Rajasthan and Assistant Engineer (City Division-II), Water Works Department Jodhpur as defendants. He also submitted an application on which amenity of water connection was restored. At that stage, the respondent No. 3 submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, which was allowed by the learned Munsif on the ground that for the proper and effective adjudication of the suit it is necessary to implead the respondent No. 3, he being one of the successors of the original landlord and it is in his presence this question can be examined as to whether the landlord has got any objection in connection with obtaining of the amenity.

Aggrieved against the order of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the court-below.

The first question, which a rises for consideration is, as to whether this Court can entertain such a revision petition and vary or reverse the order of the trial court. In view of the amended provision of Section 115, CPC. No order can be varied or reversed by this Court except where if the order is allowed to stand, will occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. Section 115, CPC has been amended and proviso has been added to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC and there are two clauses of the proviso. If the conditions provided in these two clauses exist, then only order is liable to be varied or reversed. The object of incorporating the proviso appears to curtail the remedy of revision. Not only the other conditions provided in Section 115(1), CPC are to be fulfilled, along with them, the conditions provided in the proviso are also required to be fulfilled. The respondent No. 3 Harising is undoubtedly, one of the successors of the landlord and thus, interested in the subject matter of the suit. That apart, it cannot be said that impleading of Hari Singh could occasion of failure of justice or the petitioner would suffer an irreparable injury. However, it may be observed that Hari Singh would not be entitled to enlarge the scope of the suit nor he can be permitted to conduct the case in the manner, in which the questions alien to the suit may arise. He is required to confine his pleas to the grounds averred by the plaintiff.

In the light of the above discussion in my opinion the present revision is misconceived, so it is hereby dismissed with the above observations.