Sadaqeen vs Jagdish Chander & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 99 Del

               * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Reserve: 7th January, 2010
                                                  Date of Order: January 11, 2010

CM(M) No. 1483/2009
%                                                                    11.01.2010

       Sadaqeen                                              ... Petitioner
                                      Through: Petitioner-in-person

               Versus

       Jagdish Chander & Anr.                                ... Respondents


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the

petitioner has assailed an order dated 29.10.2009 whereby the learned ADJ

dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be

impleaded as a defendant in the suit on the ground that the petitioner was not a

necessary party for adjudication of the issues before the Court. The petitioner

has challenged the order on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate

that impleadment of the petitioner as a co-defendant was necessary as the

petitioner was having direct interest in adjudication of the matter. The trial Court

also ignored the fact that an injunction was granted by a competent court in

favour of petitioner against respondent no.2 with regard to suit property. The trial

Court also did not appreciate the real controversy between the parties concerning

the suit premises and gave a wrong inference that there was no claim by the petitioner in respect of the suit shop as tenant in either of the two suits filed by the

petitioner/his father against respondent no.2.

2. It is settled law that a Court under Article 227 does not act as a

Court of appeal and cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of the

trial Court. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised carefully and only

in those cases where the subordinate Court/Tribunal had acted without

jurisdiction or had transgressed its jurisdiction. It is not the case here. The trial

Court considered all the pleas raised by the petitioner and negated them holding

that the petitioner was not a necessary party.

3. The order of the trial Court is perfectly within jurisdiction and needs

no interference. The petition is hereby dismissed.

January 11, 2010                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn