Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 531 (MP)

Babulal v. Prem Kumar

2019-07-23

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. The present revision is arising out of the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners as well as Vishnu Prasad Pathak. 2. It reveals from the record that on 16.3.2017, this Court has allowed the present civil revision and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Against the order dated 16.3.2017, a review petition was preferred by the respondent which was allowed by this Court and the civil revision was restored to its original number only on the ground of non-implementation of Vishnu Prasad Pathak. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed IA No. 1487/2018 for impleading Vishnu Prasad Pathak as petitioner No. 3 in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of filing of present civil revision, the certified copy issued by the trial Court could not reflect the name of Vishnu Prasad Pathak in the array of cause-title, therefore, he could not implead Vishnu Prasad Pathak as party in this revision as the petitioner. Vishnu Prasad Pathak as well as Dwarika Prasad Pathak both are at same footing. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that he may be permitted to implead Vishnu Prasad Pathak as petitioner No. 3 in the present civil revision. The application is supported by an affidavit. 4. Per contra, respondents No. 1 and 2, in their reply, have denied that averments made in para 1 of the application. The application filed under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC by Vishnu Prasad and Dwarka Prasad was dismissed by the trial Court. Knowingly that, the civil revision was filed only on behalf of Dwarka Prasad Pathak and not on behalf of Vishnu Prasad Pathak. Just with a view to wipe out the effect of nonmaintainability of the civil revision, the petitioners are taking incorrect stand and blaming thte Court or its office. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the civil revision as not maintainable. 5. Perused the record. 6. It is apparent from the record that Vishnu Prasad is the father of Dwarka Prasad Pathak and application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC was filed by Vishnu Prasad and Dwarka Prasad Pathak both. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the civil revision as not maintainable. 5. Perused the record. 6. It is apparent from the record that Vishnu Prasad is the father of Dwarka Prasad Pathak and application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC was filed by Vishnu Prasad and Dwarka Prasad Pathak both. Therefore, it cannot be said that non-impleading of name of Vishnu Prasad is an inadvertent mistake/clerical mistake, therefore, Vishnu Prasad was necessary party in this revision, despite his name was not impleaded. 7. Thus, non-impleading Vishnu Prasad Pathak in the civil revision is an error committed by the revisionist, which cannot be justified by fastening the liability on the other. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. Lakshman and ors., 2009 (II) MPWN 23 , the application (IA No.1487/2018) deserves to be and is hereby rejected. In consequence to rejection of the application, this civil revision is dismissed as not maintainable.