Dinesh Kalra v. Yogesh Kalra & Anr

10 CPC was dismissed. He is not apartyinthe suitproceedings. The suit was filedby YogeshKalra-respondentNo.l (plaintiffin the suit) against SmtPoonam Girdhar - respondent No.2 (defendant in the suit) for possession and mesne profits inrespect of the property No.A5B/164, SFS Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the' suit property'), by alleging that his sister Smt.Poonam Girdhar is a licensee and her licence was terminatedby him vide legal notice dated 23"" September,

2008. As she did not comply with tlie requirements of the said notice. C.R.R No.IO/2013 Page1of[3] 2013:DHC:7671 therefore, the respondent No.l filed the suit for possession and mesne profits against respondent No.2.

2. The respondent No.l in the suit was claiming himself as the sole owner of the suit property. The petitioner, who is the applicant in the trial Court, states that he is the co-owner being member of HUF. The sale consideration was paid from the joint account of HUF and respondent No.l held the property as a coparcener of HUF for the benefit of all the members. Thus, the suit property was even pinchased in the name of respondent No.l being karta of HUF. The petitioner states tliat the suit has been filed by ^ respondent No.l in his absence in order to evade his legal rights in the suit property which is not maintainable. Therefore, this application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead him as one of the parties was maintainable, he being a necessary party to the suit.

3. The learned trial Court while passing the order has dismissed the application by observing that no case on merits was made out, as the application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC was filed by the parties. The factum of suit property being that of HUF was not mentioned in the said application. The finding of the learned trial Coiut is that since respondent No.l is claiming ownership of the suitproperty coupled withthe factthatthe suit in question is a suit for ejectment of licensee which cannot be converted into a suit for claiming of title as alleged by the petitioner, therefore, the application is not maintainable. The petitioner's remedy lies by way of a separate suit and any order passed in the suit for ejectment will not be binding on the thirdparty as it is a suitfor ejectment of the licensee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made various submissions and also tried to show certain admissions made by the respondent No.l in C.R.R No.lO/2013 Page[2] of[3] various pleadings, but the fact of the matter is that while deciding a suit for possession which is merely a suit for ejectment of licensee, any judgment passed in the said suit is admittedly not binding on the petitioner. It appears to the Court that the petitioner wants to become a party in order to decide his right for title in the suit for ejectment which is not permissible in law.

5. I agree with the finding of the Court below that the petitioner has a remedy to file a separate suit for title if he so desires. In case, the petitioner is made a party to the suit instead of deciding the suit for ejectment, more confusion will occur in the pending matter in view of the plea raised by the petitioner.

6. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. XTV\ry 1 (MANMOHAN SINGI^ JUDGE SEPTEMER30,2013 C.R.P. No.lO/2013 Page 3 of[3]