Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 189 (ALL)

Naki Ali Jafri v. Nawab Jeeshan Khan

2015-01-29

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A.Qadeer, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order of the trial court by which his application under O.1 R.10 CPC has been rejected. The court has recorded a finding that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff being suit No.500 of 2012 with regard to injunction against the defendants. The revisionist claims that he is a coparcener in the said property and in the garb of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs therein are trying to alienate the property for which the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon an agreement to sell filed as Annexure-6 to the revision. It is not disputed that with regard to the same property the parties are contesting their rights in another suit being suit No.2329 of 2014 filed by the revisionist himself. Under the circumstances the court has held that the rights of the parties would be decided in the said suit which is a suit for declaration that he is a coparcener in the said property. In the present case, however, it has been held that the said suit has been filed for injunction against another person and no relief has been sought against the revisionist, therefore, he is not a necessary party. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the view taken by the court below as in the present suit no relief has been sought against the revisionist, therefore, he is not a necessary party whereas with regard to the same property, the petitioner's suit No.2329 of 2014 is already pending which is for declaration for declaring him as coparcener. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the case of Sumatibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co. and others 2008 (1) ARC 504 : (2007) 10 SCC 82 in which the Court has held that in a suit for specific performance even third party has interest in a suit for specific performance. In the present case, the question involved is with regard to the injunction of third party and no injunction has been sought against the revisionist, as such the revisionist cannot be a necessary party. In the present case, the question involved is with regard to the injunction of third party and no injunction has been sought against the revisionist, as such the revisionist cannot be a necessary party. Therefore, this case has no application to the facts of the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon another decision in the case of P.C.Varghese Vs. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and others (2005) 8 SCC 486 . In this case also the question was with regard to the specific performance and the court has held that their interest cannot be allowed to be in suspension till the finalization of the suit and then challenge the same . This case also has no application as the present suit has been filed for injunction against another person and no relief has been claimed against the revisionist. Therefore, the revisionist cannot be allowed to be made party in the present suit specially when with regard to the same property, the petitioner has also filed a suit and is being contested by the defendants. 6. The revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.