Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2525 (ALL)

Rahmat Bux Rahmani v. Sarla Malhotra

2011-11-04

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2011
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.:- Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Mr. Sachin Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party. Heard Mr. Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party. The civil revision has been filed against the order dated 28.9.2011 by which the learned Court below has rejected the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist tried to insist that the opposite party had filed SCC Suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. During pendency of the said suit, she sold the property in question to one Kitabunisha wife of Mr. Shaban Ali who holds the power of attorney on her behalf. In the said suit, substitution application was moved by the present plaintiff after the death of her husband by stating that she is the sole legal heir, although the widow daughter-in-law Smt. Sweta Malhotra is also the legal heir and necessary party in the case. The revisionist had filed objections but the learned Court below had allowed the substitution application. Thereafter, the revisionist had moved the amendment application, copy of amendment application is annexed as Annexure No. 11. By the said amendment application, the revisionist wanted to bring on record the relevant fact that Sweta Malhotra is a necessary party in the said suit and the suit in question is defective due to non-joinder of necessary party. The other amendment which the revisionist wanted was that the alleged power of attorney dated 23.2.2010 is a forged document. Contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that these were relevant material facts which were necessary to be brought on record for proper adjudication of the case. However, the learned Court below has rejected the application and therefore, the revisionist has filed the present revision. Mr. Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that, in fact, it was a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, the landlord was represented by Smt. Sarla Malhotra and Sweta Malhotra was not necessary to be impleaded. His further contention is that the revisionist is deliberately trying to delay the proceedings and its SSC Suit which is required to be decided, expeditiously. The revisionist has even moved the transfer application as he does not want the case to be decided. His further contention is that the revisionist is deliberately trying to delay the proceedings and its SSC Suit which is required to be decided, expeditiously. The revisionist has even moved the transfer application as he does not want the case to be decided. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. The perusal of the order impugned dated 28.9.2011 clearly indicates that the learned Court below has considered the submissions made by the parties on the application for amendment and has come to the conclusion that the case relates to ejectment and arrears of rent and the law is settled that in case there are more than one landlord then anyone of them can maintain the suit for ejectment. In the present case Smt. Sarla Malhotra who is landlord has maintained the suit for ejectment, therefore, it is not necessary to implead Sweta Malhotra as plaintiff to the suit. The SCC Suit, as per the provisions, is required to be decided within three months. The application appears to have been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings, it has no force and liable to be rejected. It has also been noted by the learned Court below that earlier the suit was proceeded ex parte and the said order was recalled with the condition that the parties to the suit in future would not move any application for adjournment. The matter relates to the year 2003 and it is one of the oldest cases. The proceedings of the case are being monitored by the High Court. The pleas raised by the revisionist have no force. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 28.9.2011 passed by the learned Court below. The revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.