Kamal Saini vs Narender Kumar And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 370 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge while adjudicating upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 PC has held that the petitioner herein is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. D -34, situated at Abadi of D-Park, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Ilaka Shahdara, Delhi, wherein Mohan Lal is the tenant. He further submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are colluding with respondent No.3 and in the garb of an ex parte order get into possession of the premises, which lawfully belongs to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. It appears to me prima facie that when the petitioner has put up her case as the owner of the premises bearing No. D -34, situated at Abadi of D-Park, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Ilaka Shahdara, Delhi, and Mohan Lal atones to her as tenant and an eviction is sought from the premises of which Mohan Lal is a tenant of the petitioner as claimed, it would be proper and in the interest of justice that petitioner be allowed to be added as party since her interest may get affected as Mohan Lal has decided to let the petition proceed ex parte. Consequently, I set aside the order dated 5.2.2004 and allow application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC.

4. CM(M) 683/2004 is allowed and disposed of. CM APPL.Nos. 6653/2004 and 831/2005 also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Case to proceed in accordance with law.