Judgment:
ORDER
1. In this application, thepetitioner herein questioned an order dated 10th December, 1997 passed in IA No.1827 of 1997 arising out of OS No.362 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the 1st respondent herein for impleading himself as a party to the suit was allowed.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the 2nd respondent defendant being OS No.362 of 1997 only for realisation of arrears of rent. The third party-respondent filed the application for impleading himself as a party, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner's husband has executed a will in his favour. Before the learned trial Judge, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner relying on the basis of a decision in Mujta Bai Begum v. Mehubub Rehman, : AIR1959MP359 , that the plaintiff cannot be forced to add a person as a party against his will.
3. The learned trial Judge arrived at a finding of fact that by filing documents, the third party-respondent has established that he is the absolute owner of the entireschedule property.
4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the basis of the claim of the third party, he should not have been directed to be impleaded as a party respondent in the suit by the learned trial Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the fact that the will is yet to be propounded and his title in the suit land is yet to be declared.
5. The learned Counsel appears to be correct. In B. Somaiah v. Amina Begum, : AIR1976AP182 , this Court has laid down the principle to be followed by a Court while considering the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, in the following terms:
'Where a person applies to be made a party, what the Court ought to see is whether there is anything in the suit which cannot be determined owing to his absence or whether there will be prejudice by his not being added as a party. Order 1, Rule 10 cannot be read as requiring that all persons who are likely to have any sort of right, title or interest in respect of the subject-matter of a suit should be made parties to it. 'Questions involved in the suit' refer only to questions between the parties to the suit. They refer only questions as between the plaintiffs and the defendants and not to questions which may arise between a party to the suit and a third party. The procedure under Order 1, Rule 10 should always be adopted where it is really necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order 1, Rule 10 cannot be resorted to where there is no need for adding new parties for adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit.'
6. Keeping in view the fact that the only issue which would arise for consideration before the learned Judge was as to whether the defendant in the suit was liable to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff-petitioner, the same could not have been directed to be converted into a suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs by and between the plaintiff and the third-party in relation whereto, the defend ant-respondent had not raised any question. The said question of title, therefore, is beyond the scope of the suit, and the third party-respondent was thus neither a necessary party nor a proper party.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the third patty-respondent may ventilate his grievances in a separate suit. There shall be no order as to costs.