Challenging an order-dated 7.5.2012 passed by the First Civil Judge Class I, Katni in Civil Suit No. 87-A/2011, dismissing an application - Annexure P/3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
Respondent No. 1 has filed the suit in question against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, with regard to the property in question and it is seen that respondents 1 to 4 are members of the same family and a dispute with regard to the property and the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in demolishing a part of the suit property is pending consideration in the suit in question and the dispute between the respondents is based on the Law of Succession.
Petitioner is only a tenant in the suit property and his application for being impleaded as a party is rejected by the court below by indicating that the petitioner is only a tenant and, therefore, he is not a necessary party.
Even though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to indicate that petitioner has a share in the property, but in his application - Annexure P/3 filed under Order 1 Rule 10, there is nothing to indicate that before the court below also any such claim was made by the petitioner. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed on the ground that petitioner is a tenant of the suit property and as he has to pay rent to the correct owner, he raised the dispute.
Finding him not to be a necessary party, the application has been rejected. Rejection of the same is not perverse or erroneous to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, is called for.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.