Rajbir Alias Raj Kumar vs Sh. Mange ram and Another

S.S. Kang, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned trial Judge dated April 1, 1986, whereby he had allowed an application under Order 1, R. 10 Code of Civil Procedure, filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi Respondent No. 2, for being impleaded as a Defendant in the suit filed by Rajbir-Petitioner, against Mange Ram. It has been filed in the following circumstances.

Rajbir-Petitioner, filed a suit against Mange Ram for a declaration that he was the adopted son of the Defendant and the suit land had fallen to his share in pursuance of a family settlement entered into between the parties. Mange Ram appeared and put in Written Statement. He also made a statement in Court in admitting the claim of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. Shmt. Nirmala Devi, Respondent No. 2 to the present revision petition, filed an application under O 1 R 10 C. P. C., praying that she was the daughter of Mange Ram Defendant, and she was, vitally interested in the outcome of the suit. This application was resisted by the present Petitioner. He urged that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. She had no locus standi to file the application and challenge the acts of Mange Ram Defendant. The learned trial Judge allowed the application and ordered that Respondent No. 2 be impleaded as a Defendant. Aggrieved, Rajbir has filed the present revision petition.

Mr. Subhash Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the Respondent No. 2 did not make out any case for being impleaded as a Defendant. In the suit, no relief had been claimed against her. As the land in dispute was the property of the Defendant, this Respondent has no subsisting interest in the suit land. He has discretion to choose his adversary in a civil cause and cannot be forced to fight against a person against whom he seeks no relief. The counsel also contended that the applicant was not such a person in whose absence the matter in dispute could not be effectively and finally adjudicated upon. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Kapoor. The applicant-Respondent claims to be the daughter of Mange Ram Being a female she does not form coparcenary with Mange Ram, and, in fact, that is not her claim. It has not been shown by Mr. Dahiya, learned Counsel for the Respondent, that she has any subsisting interest in the suit land. All that he has contended is that after the demise of Mange Ram, the applicant Respondent shall be entitled to succeed to this estate to the extent of her share. This does not establish any interest in the suit land in presenti. Admittedly no relief is claimed against Respondent No. 2.

In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above she is not a proper party. The learned trial Judge has acted with material irregularity while allowing the application.

The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with no order as to costs.