JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. The plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. The property bearing No. B-3/9, Krishan Nagar, Delhi was originally owned by the father of the parties who expired in 1958. On his death, his legal heirs inherited the property, however, by a deed of a relinquishment, not disputed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant relinquished their shares in the property in favor of their mother, respondent No. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction in the Trial Court on the allegations that the parties to the suit Along with their mother were carrying on business under the name and style of A.C. Industries. This partnership business was allegedly dissolved on 1st April, 1981 and as per settlement alleged to have been arrived at between the parties, the mother of the parties withdrew herself from the business. Plaintiff was allegedly continuing to work under the name and style of A.C. Industries in the premises and also got himself registered with the Sales Tax and Income Tax Departments. It was submitted that the defendant with a view to oust the plaintiff from the business started using all fair and foul means and started harassing him. It was submitted in the suit that the defendant having shifted his business to another premises had no right whatsoever to interfere with the business of the plaintiff or to remove the electricity cut-outs/fuses or to interfere with the opening and closing of the main gate of the premises. After summons were issued to the defendant, an application was filed by the mother of the parties under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC stating, inter alia, that she was the owner of the property and that the plaintiff was using the premises with her permission with a clear understanding that he will look after the applicant and pay her day-to-day expenses. It was submitted that since the plaintiff had become hostile to the applicant and had started creating problems for her, she revoked the license given to him for use of the premises and he was, therefore, not entitled to continue to use the premises and the suit, according to her, was not maintainable. It was also submitted that it was the applicant who had dis-connected the electricity supply of the plaintiff and she had not been made a party, though the reliefs were directly claimed against her only. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court allowed the application of respondent No. 2 and directed her to be imp leaded as a party to the suit. Being aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed.
2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that since the plaintiff was not seeking any relief against respondent No. 2, she was neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit and her presence was also not required for deciding the matters in controversy between the parties. It is also his submission that in an injunction suit, third parties have no right to be imp leaded. A third party may be owner of the suit property but since the questions in suit mean questions between the parties to the suit and in the suit the question of the title or possession is not be decided respondent No. 2 was not a necessary party to the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported as Khushi Ram v. Lal Man, etc. 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 681; Evangelical Church v. N.I. Qutreach Society, 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 195, and a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Panne Khushali and Anr. v Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and Anr., . It is, therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the applicant being a stranger to the suit is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and could not be joined as a defendant.
3. I have carefully gone through he judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records of the case. However, I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner. The applicant is undoubtedly the owner of the property and the case of the applicant is that the electricity was dis-connected by her and not by the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, against the defendant for restraining him from disconnecting the electricity, in my opinion, cannot be decided without the applicant being made a party to the suit. The question as to whether or not plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction is necessarily to be decided in the presence of respondent No. 2 who is not only the owner of the property but is also claiming to be creating hindrances in the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. The presence of respondent No. 2, therefore, in my opinion, is necessary for deciding the real matters in controversy involved in the suit.
4. I, accordingly, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. The petition, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.
