Shyam Beharilal vs Mst. Bishen Bai and others

Nigam, J.C.

Shyam Beharilal and five others filed Civil Suit No. 894 of 1950 in the Court of IInd Additional Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer, claiming redemption of the suit property.

In that suit one Shyam Beharilal claiming certain rights of equity of redemption filed an application that he be also added as a party. In the arguments it was urged that he be added as a plaintiff. The learned IInd Additional Sub-Judge added the applicant Shyam Beharilal as a defendant saying that the applicant can conveniently remain on record ''to watch that the case in no way prejudices his rights''. Against that order Shyam Beharilal has come up in revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the mortgagors, the original plaintiffs.

The learned counsel for the applicant has referred me to -- Basdeo Prasad Vs. Dwarika Pandey, and -- Vanjiappa Goundan Vs. N.P.V.L.R. Annamalai Chettiar and Others, In my opinion, facts being different, neither of these rulings will help the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party has referred me to -- Kali Rai Vs. Tulsi Rai and Others, for the argument that Section 115, Civil P.C. does not apply to any such application. In the ruling referred to by the learned counsel it was held that though Section 115 was not applicable, the Court could give direction under its general power of superintendence.

On the facts of the case, I am of opinion that the learned Additional Sub-Judge was right in allowing shyam Beharilal''s application that he should be made a party. It is, of course, correct that matters at issue between Shyam Beharilal and the plaintiffs could not be agitated in the present suit. To that extent the limitation put by the Second Additional Sub-Judge was quite right. I however, expect that the learned IInd Additional Sub-Judge would permit any question at issue between Shyam Beharilal and the defendants-mortgagees to be decided in the present suit and that his direction that Shyam Behari Lal should only watch the proceedings will not prejudice Shyam Beharilal''s rights to get questions involved between him and defendants-mortgagees also settled in the present case.

This revision is decided accordingly. In this revision parties will bear their own costs.