K. Ramamoorthy ( 1 ) IANO. 9617/95 is under Order 3 9 Rules 1 and 2 for injunction filed by the plaintiff. IANo. 9844/ 95 is under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 4 and order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for vacation/ review of order dated 12. 10. 1995 and restoration of status quo. There is another IANo. 9961/95 under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code filed by the third party for impleading as a party. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff shortly stated is as follows: ( 3 ) THE Defendant in or about December 1994 represented that a portion of the property in premises No. 64, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, is available for leasing out to the laintiff. The area of the portion is about 1050 sq. ft. The defendant represented that by virtue of the decree in Suit No. 46/85 dated 26. 08. 1986 on the file of the Sub Judge, First Class, Shri Rakesh Kapoor, the defendant became entitled to lease out of the premises, he also represented that he had not been successful in any business activities he started and therefore, he would like to put the plaintiff in possession of the property for carrying out its business and he would be satisfied with the income from the property is money paid by the plaintiff by way of rent The negotiations culminated in a contract in and by which the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs. 3000. 00 as cash deposit. Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as goodwill and Rs. 9,000. 00 towards three months advance rent and the possession was taken by the plaintiff on 1st January, 1995. The plaintiff spent a lot of money by making lot of improvement in the property for which they have filed number of documents. ( 4 ) ON third February, 1995 the plaintiff Company was duly incorporated as public limited Company. On 22nd February 1995 the plaintiff Company started operating from the said premises, commenced its business of hire purchase financing, leasing and merchant banking. The plaintiffhas also submitted a statutory report to the Registrar of Companies. ( 5 ) ON 28th February 1995, the plaintiff Company opened a current account with the Federal Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi. The plaintiff had requested the defendant to have the lease deed executed. The plaintiffhas also submitted a statutory report to the Registrar of Companies. ( 5 ) ON 28th February 1995, the plaintiff Company opened a current account with the Federal Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi. The plaintiff had requested the defendant to have the lease deed executed. The defendant represented that he was awaiting the powers of attorney from the legal representatives of his two deceased brothers settled in Canada. ( 6 ) ON first March 1995, the defendant pursuant to the newspaper advertisement given by the plaintiff in Annexure VIII for carrying on the business as Stock Broker approached the plaintiff sister concern M/s Shatabdi Investment and Commercial Enterprises and defendant was allowed a Sub Broker code for conducting the business from Shankar Market premises. The plaintiff on 28. 04. 1995 paid Rs. 1,10,000. 00 towards a permanent security deposit for the use of the existing telephone installed in the premises and on 25. 09. 1995 the plaintiff paid Rs. 18,000. 00 towards the advance rent from April 1995 to March 1996. ( 7 ) ON 28. 04. 1995 the plaintiff paid Rs. 18,000. 00. On 25. 04. 1995 the plaintiff paid another 18,000 - towards the advance rent from April 1995 to March 1996. (that comes to Rs. 36,000. 00 ). The bank certificate is filed as Annexure-DC. ( 8 ) ON 30. 06. 1995, when the plaintiff Company was very much involved in the marriage of one of the Directors, the defendant came to the premises and attempted to evict the Company from the leased premises. The plaintiff Company immediately reported the matter to the Police copy is filed as Annexure XI. ( 9 ) ON 04. 07. 1995, Shri Nar Singh Investigating Officer came to the premises and after having studied the situation he gave a report on 4. 7. 1995. The report by Shri Nar Singh is filed as Annexure XII. According to the plaintiff that report shows that the possession of the premises with the plaintiff ( 10 ) ON 05. 07. 1995, the plaintiff unlocked the shutter of the premises at 10. 00a. m. and closed the shop in the evening. ( 11 ) IN the morning of 6th of July 1995 the plaintiffs were shocked to find the police seals covering their shutter locks and two ineffective locks, just to show that the defendant is in possession. 07. 1995, the plaintiff unlocked the shutter of the premises at 10. 00a. m. and closed the shop in the evening. ( 11 ) IN the morning of 6th of July 1995 the plaintiffs were shocked to find the police seals covering their shutter locks and two ineffective locks, just to show that the defendant is in possession. On inquiry the plaintiff came to know that the Deputy Commissioner of Police on the night of 5th of July 1995 had directed the sealing of the premises purporting to exercise his powers under Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The plaintiff challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police filed CWP No. 2699 of 1995 in this Court. The photocopy of the C. W is filed as Annexure-XIII. The defendant filed the counter affidavit which is annexure XIV. ( 12 ) BY an order dated 7th August 1995 this court allowed the writ petition and the police was directed to deseal the premises after 9th August 1995. The judgment of the Division Bench is filed as Annexure XV. ( 13 ) ON the 6th of July 1995, the Police Division Officer Sub Inspector Shri Ombir Singh submitted a report to the Additional Commissioner of Police which is filed as Annexure XVI. In the report Shn Ombir Singh has stated that the premises was given to Shri Pawan Singal without any rent agreement on a rent of Rs. 6000. 00 per month but according to Shri H. P. Tandon he gave the premises to Shri Singal on commission basis and for share in the business. What action that was taken on the Police report is not known. ( 14 ) ON the 5th of July 1995, the Police commenced proceedings under Section 107/111 of the Cr. P. C. in the Court of Shri Ashok Hari, Special Executive Magistrate. The Magistrate issued show cause notice (Annexure XVII) for appearance of the parties on 24. 07. 1995. On that date he directed the parties to file reply by 31. 07. 1995. The Magistrate was absent and next date of hearing was fixed. It would appear that on 02. 08. 1995 the defendant filed a complaint which is filed as Annexure XVIII invoking Sections 145, 146 Cr. P. C. before Shri Rakesh Nagpal Sub Division Magistrate, New Delhi praying for the attachment of the suit property. 07. 1995. The Magistrate was absent and next date of hearing was fixed. It would appear that on 02. 08. 1995 the defendant filed a complaint which is filed as Annexure XVIII invoking Sections 145, 146 Cr. P. C. before Shri Rakesh Nagpal Sub Division Magistrate, New Delhi praying for the attachment of the suit property. The learned S. D. M. on the receipt of the complaint directed the police to submit a report on the same day. On 7th and 8th August 1995 the police submitted a report to the learned SDM (Annexure XIX.) On 9. 8. 1995 the plaintiff was served preliminary order under Section 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. by the learned SDM. They are filed Annexures XX and XXI. ( 15 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is bent upon abusing the process of law and is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the plaintiff has absolute right to be in possession and the plaintiff is in lawful and settled possession of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the plaintiff is the Sub tenant of the defendant in exclusive possession of the property bearing No. 64, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, admeasuring approximately 1050 sq. ft. and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff possession of. the property. The plaintiff also claims damages to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000. 00 ( 16 ) AS I have noticed above, the defendant filed IA No. 9844/95 under Order 39 Rules 1,2 and 4 and under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for vacation/review of order dated 12. 10. 1995 and restoration of status quo ante. ( 17 ) THE defendant has stated in his petition that the defendant learnt at about 2. 30 p. m. on 12. 10. 1995 that the plaintiff has filed the present suit and the learned counsel for the defendant mentioned the matter before this court at about 3. 00p. 10. 1995 and restoration of status quo ante. ( 17 ) THE defendant has stated in his petition that the defendant learnt at about 2. 30 p. m. on 12. 10. 1995 that the plaintiff has filed the present suit and the learned counsel for the defendant mentioned the matter before this court at about 3. 00p. m. on that date and a request was made to suspend the operation of the order of injunction and that was not done, that the plaintiff opened the premises in the night between 12/13th October 1995 between 9 to 10 a. m. , that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts from the court, that the story of sub tenancy is frivolous and concocted, that on 09. 08. 1995, Shri Rakesh Nath Nagpal, SDM New Delhi, on the basis of police report passed an order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. calling upon the parties to file the written statement and documents by 16. 08. 1995 and under Section 146 ordered the sealing of the premises meanwhile, that the premises was sealed by the police on 9. 8. 1995, that on 16. 08. 1995 the learned SDM Shri Rakesh Nath Nagpal adjourned the matter to 30. 08. 1995, that the plaintiff filed Revision Petition in this court in Crl. Revision No. 165/95 for quashing the order of the S. D. M. dated 09. 08. 1995, but the same was dismissed by this Court on 16. 08. 1995 directing the plaintiff to move the Sessions Court for necessary relief, that thereupon the plaintiff filed Crl. Revision before the learned Sessions Judge against the order of the learned S. D. M. dated 09. 08. 1995 and Shri B. S. Choudhary Addl. District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 28. 08. 1995, declined to grant stay of the matter and the main case is pending, that the plaintiff has concealed the fact that the Suit No. 1881 of 1995 was filed by Shri L. D. Tandon brother of defendant Shn H B. Tandon with reference to the same property in which the plaintiff is also a party and the plaintiff is the 6th defendant in that suit. ( 18 ) IN para 7 of the petition it is stated: "it is submitted that under Order 3 9 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code no injunction can be issued without notice to the opposite party a mandatory injunction can be operated to create a new situation. In this case the order of this Hon ble Court dated 12. 10. 1995 records no reasons for grant of injunction without notice. The property has lying sealed and the appropriate order could have been passed after hearing the parties. "the defendant further submitted that: "that the Division Bench while accepting the Civil Writ Petition No. 2699 of 1995 had observed that the Magistrate on the reference to decide the factum of possession. " ( 19 ) IN para 8 of the petition the defendant has stated that the entire ground floor area of about 2000 sq. ft was let out by Shri Khushwant Singh to M/s Tandon Bros a partnership concern consisting of S/shri Keshwanand Tandon, Laxman Das Tandon, Har Bhagwan Tandon and Madan Lal Tandon. In 1974 a suit for dissolution of the firm was filed and was compromised in 1986. Though as per the compromise the user of the premises was divided the tenancy continued as single and indivisible. In 1986, the defendant started the business in the name and style of Kesho-Baggi s. The business was not profitable and was closed in 1993. The premises was under lock and key. In January 1995 one Shri Ishwar Bansal approached the defendant with Shri P. K. Singhal, Ajay Singhal and Sanjay Singhal who are share brokers and were carrying on business at that point of time in the name of M/s Shatabdi Investment and Commercial Enterprises, Shatabadi House, 3 Shopping Complex, Rohit Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi -110034. These persons after appointing M/s H. B. Tandon and Co. to run business as Commission Agents as Sub-broker in the said premises and initially for sometime, in order to train and establish the business. The plaintiff was to assist the defendant. The defendant agreed to act as Commission agent. It was for this reason that the defendant on 02. 02. 1995 gave an application to M/s Shatabadi Investment and Commercial Enterprises for being appointed as Sub Broker. There was no agreement of sub tenancy. ( 20 ) ABOUT the payment receipt the defendant would state "a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and Rs. 18,000. It was for this reason that the defendant on 02. 02. 1995 gave an application to M/s Shatabadi Investment and Commercial Enterprises for being appointed as Sub Broker. There was no agreement of sub tenancy. ( 20 ) ABOUT the payment receipt the defendant would state "a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and Rs. 18,000. 00 were paid to M/s H. B. Tandon and Company, the defendant on 28. 04. 1995 on account of Commission and another sum of Rs. 19,000. 00 was paid on adhoc basis on 20. 05. 1995 towards commission because by then the entire account had not been worked out and finalised. Therefore, these payments were made on account of commission to M/s H. B. Tandon and Company only. No other payment was ever made. No rent note was ever executed nor any rent receipt issued. " ( 21 ) THE defendant renovated the office but he was not inclined to make huge investment in computer and fax and since the plaintiff had advised that for the purpose of share broker business it was essential. ( 22 ) THE plaintiff turned dishonest subsequently and wanted to grab the premises. The plaintiff alongwith 25 to 30 musclemen forcibly entered the premises and thereby committed criminal offence. It is only because of this the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, passed an order under Section 33 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The plaintiff was never in legal possession of the property and the defendant was in physical and legal possession of the premises. The plaintiff on the strength of the order passed by this Court on 12. 10. 1995 with the help of the police removed the locks of the defendant and installed new locking systems and no notice of inspection was given by the Local Commissioner. The defendant has filed complaint dated 30. 06. 1995. The defendant has stated that the plaintiff Mr, P. K. Singhal, Ajay Singh and Sanjay Singhal had suggested good business as broker in shares and by running the sub broker they will share with the defendant on the shares allotted for ensuring regular payment of defendant s commission, for which they had advanced money. The locks put by the defendant had been removed by the plaintiff. The report given by Shri P. K. Singhal on 30. 6. 1995 is filed. The statement of KB. The locks put by the defendant had been removed by the plaintiff. The report given by Shri P. K. Singhal on 30. 6. 1995 is filed. The statement of KB. Tandon is given at page 14 of the typed set of the defendant wherein more or less the same facts are mentioned. Page, 16, the report dated 4. 7. 1995 by Shri P. K. Singhal to Connaught Place Police Station, is given wherein Shri P. K. Singhal has mentioned that Shri Tandon removed the staff of the plaintiff forcibly after the marriage in the family on 4,7. 1995. The office opened at 9. 00a. m. and the plaintiff Company was functioning. The second report dated 8. 8. 1995 by Shri Rakesh Ahuja is given therein. He has recommended the sealing of the premises. The cause title of the suit in Suit No. 46/85 is given at page 18 and the compromise in that suit is also filed. At page 31 the application to act as Sub- broker is filed. A judgment in CW No. 2699/95 is filed. ( 23 ) HAVING regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case the question arises whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date of the suit and the plaintiff is entitled to injunction pending the suit. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Khosla submitted that the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the property is admitted by the defendant and the documents filed by the plaintiff would clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. I have referred to all the documents filed by the plaintiff and the defendant. ( 25 ) EVEN the police report would show that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property since from July-1995 the defendant had attempted to take possession of the property from the plaintiff. The case of the defendant that the plaintiff came there only to start the business and money was paid by the plaintiff in advance to the defendant towards commission payable appears to be wholly unrealistic considering the normal course of human conduct. No man would pay substantial sum of money without any commitment by the other man to do something. The case of the defendant that the plaintiff came there only to start the business and money was paid by the plaintiff in advance to the defendant towards commission payable appears to be wholly unrealistic considering the normal course of human conduct. No man would pay substantial sum of money without any commitment by the other man to do something. In other words, unless there was a clear understanding between the parties to some agreement the parties would not make payment and the party would not receive payment without any kind of advantage. The case of the defendant is very artificial. The defendant is trying to wriggle out the situation and had how trying to take law into his hands. The defendant was also seeking the assistance of the police which failed in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No. 2699/95. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel Mr. K. C. Mittal for the defendant vehemently contended that when the property was under seal by the police the court ought not to have granted ad interim injunction and the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. According to the learned counsel for the defendant that after the judgment of the Division Bench there was an order under Section 145 and 146 and the plaintiff filed a Revision Petition before this Court and this Court directed the plaintiff to approach the District court in the Revision filed by the plaintiff and did not pass any interim orders and, therefore, that is a factor which would go against the grant of injunction in favour of the Petitioner. I am afraid that the contention is not at all sustainable. The Civil Court can consider on the materials placed before it whether the plaintiff has been in possession and was in possession on the date of the suit. I do not want to again deal with the documents in detail which I have adverted to. On a perusal of the documents the conclusion is that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property right from the date of the agreement with the defendant. ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant Mr. K. C. Mittal relied upon Jhunamalalias Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 1973 and relied upon of the observation of the Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment. ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant Mr. K. C. Mittal relied upon Jhunamalalias Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 1973 and relied upon of the observation of the Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment. Para 7 of the judgment reads as follows: "we fail to understand how the High Court in this case took advantage of the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer s case. The ratio of the said decision is that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal Court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter. That does not mean that a concluded order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be sent at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under S. 145 Cr. P. C. deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. it confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil Court. The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil Court. He may move the dvil Court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession. The dvil Court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached. " ( 28 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant Mr. Mittal also relied upon in Fateh Mohammad Vs. State of U. P. and ors. 1982 Criminal Law Journal 388 I do not find anything relevant to the case here. ( 29 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant Mr. K. C. Mittal referred to Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which is as follows; Before granting injunction, court to direct notice to opposite party - The court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. " He submitted that issue of notice before passing an ad interim would not have caused any prejudice to the plaintiff. " He submitted that issue of notice before passing an ad interim would not have caused any prejudice to the plaintiff. This court has passed the mandatory injunction without notice to the defendant and that has caused great prejudice to the defendant. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Mrs. Vljay Srivastava Vs. Mirahul Enterprises and others AIR 1988 Delhi 140. This court had laid down that the mandatory injunction would be issued in rare and exceptional cases. The facts of the case are entirely different and the defendants cannot rely upon this judgment for defeating the rights of the defendant. ( 30 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant referred to the decision reported in Delhi Airport Porters Labour Contract and C. C. Society Vs. International Airport Authority 1984 Rajdhani Law Report 352. The facts of this case also are do not close to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the defendant also relied upon M/s Model Press (P) Ltd Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and ors AIR 1978 Delhi 44to tell me what are the exceptional circumstances under which a mandatory injunction can be granted. Having given my careful consideration to the materials placed before me. I am not able to resist the feeling that the defendant had acted with mala fide intention and his conduct has been far from satisfactory. He has received huge sum of money from the plaintiff. But he would show that it is towards the payment of commission in future which sounds very unnatural. He had allowed the plaintiff to make improvement spending money and he knew that the plaintiff had installed in the premises costly material, like phone, fax machine and computer and he had not objected to the same at any time. His case is it was installed for his own benefit. The story is only to be stated to be rejected. The projection of the case by the defendant in the way in which he has done shows needle of suspicion turning towards the guilt of the defendant. The defendant is obviously jealous of the plaintiff. The defendant having committed an offence in the sense that trying to take forcible possession from the plaintiff cannot try to take advantage of his own wrong. His motives are very apparent. His intentions are bad. Therefore, the court cannot lend aid to such a person. The defendant is obviously jealous of the plaintiff. The defendant having committed an offence in the sense that trying to take forcible possession from the plaintiff cannot try to take advantage of his own wrong. His motives are very apparent. His intentions are bad. Therefore, the court cannot lend aid to such a person. It is the basic principle of law that the court ought to protect a person who is innocent against the person who is guilty of using force. I recall the observations of Lord Denning in Wallersteiner V. Moir Vs. Mow V. Wallersteiner and ors in 1974 (3) All ER 217 as extract by the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1977 All page 83 at page 90 as follows: "it was Lord Bacon in his essay on judicature who said: The principal duty of a Judge is to suppress force and fraud". As part of this it is the duty of a Judge to denounce wrong-doing when it is established before him. He speaks for all law-abiding citizens. His words uphold the opinion of the good. And shake the confidence of the wicked. By condemning wrong doing, he reinforces the moral sanction on which law and order so much depend". In Rati Ram and Anr. Vs. Ram Bhaj Gupta and ors 32 (1987) DLT 287 the learned Judge Ms, Justice Sunanda Bhandare granted injunction on the facts and circumstances of that case. Learned counsel forthe plaintiff relied upon the decision of this court reported in Intercraft Limited Vs. Capital Boot House and ors 59 (1985) Delhi Law Times page 774 where Hon ble Mr. Justice S. D. Pandit on the facts and circumstances of the case granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. But I do not think that case can be cited as a precedent for this case. I find that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case for the grant of injunction. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. ( 31 ) THEN the question arises what is the rent payable for the premises. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff what was agreed was Rs. 3000. 00 per month. Learned counsel for the defendant as I noticed above states that there was no question of tenancy. ( 31 ) THEN the question arises what is the rent payable for the premises. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff what was agreed was Rs. 3000. 00 per month. Learned counsel for the defendant as I noticed above states that there was no question of tenancy. But would refer to a police report wherein the police had stated that the rent as understood by them is Rs. 6000. 00 per month. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Rs. 36,000. 00 has already been paid upto March 1996. Therefore, a prima facie, I feel the case of the plaintiff is true. The plaintiff would continue to pay a sum of Rs. 3000. 00 per month to the defendant. ( 32 ) FOR forgoing reasons ad interim granted is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. IA No. 9961/95 ( 33 ) THIS petition has been filed Shri Lachman Dass Tandon to implead as a party to the case. In the petition reference is made to the suit filed by him in Suit No. 1881/95 wherein he has prayed for a declaration that he is the owner of the tenancy right in garage Nos. 3 9, 40 and 41 in property No. 64, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and for injunction restraining the first defendant (Sh. H. B. Tandon) and for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to remove defendants 4 to 6 and any person other than himself from occupation of property shown red in the plan and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 4 to 6 from occupying the disputed premises shown red and also restraining defendants 1 and 2. not to induct in future any person in the premises shown red in the plan. not to induct in future any person in the premises shown red in the plan. Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code reads as follows: Suit in name of wrong plaintiff: 1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. 3) Court may strike out or add parties -. The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear, to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. 4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended - Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the court thinks fit, on the original defendant. 5) Subject to the provisions of the "indian Limitation Act,1877 (15of 1877), Section, 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons". ( 34 ) THE principles have been stated by different High Courts for the purpose of considering the question whether a party can be impleaded in this suit. ( 34 ) THE principles have been stated by different High Courts for the purpose of considering the question whether a party can be impleaded in this suit. The principles are as follows: 1) If, for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties on record, the presence of the third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded; 2) It is imperative to note that by such impleading of the proposed party, all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject matter which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself. 3) The proposed party as a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognizable in law. 4) Meticulous care should be taken to avoid the adding of a party if it is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other grievances of one or the other of the parties on record which is neither necessary nor expedient to be considered by the Court in the pending litigation; and 5) It should always be remembered that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by Courts by adding a new party whose interest has no nexus to the subject-matter of the suit. ( 34 ) IN the instant case the Petitioner has already filed the suit wherein the plaintiff herein is also made a party defendant. In this suit the proposed party cannot seek to get adjudication of his grievance against the defendant which is to be adjudicated in the other suit that is Suit No. 1881 /95. Therefore, I do not find that the proposed party is either a necessary or proper party to this present litigation. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 35 ) IA No. 9617/95 is allowed. Ad interim injunction granted is made absolute. IA No. 9844/95 for vacating injunction is dismissed. IA No. 9961/95 for impleading the petitioner as a party defendant to the case is dismissed. ( 36 ) POST the matter for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 15th of April 1996. ( 35 ) IA No. 9617/95 is allowed. Ad interim injunction granted is made absolute. IA No. 9844/95 for vacating injunction is dismissed. IA No. 9961/95 for impleading the petitioner as a party defendant to the case is dismissed. ( 36 ) POST the matter for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 15th of April 1996. Parties are at liberty to file their respective original documents within six weeks copies thereof be exchanged between them.