1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 269/2008. Om Prakash Vs. Amina Bai & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, for the petitioner. ...... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition the petitioner-applicant seeks to question the order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.373/1992 whereby an application moved by the petitioner seeking impleadment in the suit for redemption of mortgage has been declined. Briefly put, the facts and aspects relevant for the present purpose are that the suit in question was filed on 17.05.1991 by Tahir Ali (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives respondents Nos. 1 to 7 herein) essentially with the averment that the shop described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was mortgaged with possession with Sagarmal (respondent No. 8 herein) on 23.10.1984 against an amount of Rs. 28,500/- with stipulations including the minimum term of mortgage at 6½ years as stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, after the end of such term he approached the defendant with payment and made the 2 request for redemption that was declined; and even the notice having gone in vain, the suit was necessitated. The plaintiff has prayed for the decree for redemption of mortgage with repayment of the amount of Rs. 28,500/- to the defendant. It appears that the suit was pending for plaintiff’s evidence when the petitioner-applicant moved the application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annex.2) with the submission that the plaintiff Tahir Ali had no right in the suit shop that was, according to the petitioner, belonging to Saifuddin son of Allabux Bohra who sold the same to him on 06.10.2005 by way of registered sale deed; and he has the right to recover physical possession of the suit shop from the tenant Govind Soni. The petitioner urged that by joining him as party to the suit all the questions relating to the title would be decided between the parties and for not joining him, all the disputes would not be resolved and complications would arise. The application was put to contention by the plaintiffs and the learned trial court has proceeded to reject the same by its impugned order dated 02.11.2007(Annex.4). The learned trial court has observed that the suit in question was a simple suit for redemption of mortgage and the plaintiff has not sought any declaration about title; and that by way of the present application the applicant wanted to convert it into a title suit; and if he is joined, the scope of the suit would 3 get enlarged and its nature would also get changed. The learned trial court has further observed that the applicant was free to file separate suit and the present one was not of any prejudice to his rights. Seeking to assail the order dated 02.11.2007 the applicant has preferred this writ petition with the submissions that he is a directly necessary party to suit when in his favour sale deed has been executed by the true owner of the property; that Tahir Ali being not the owner of the property could not have executed any mortgage deed; that when the petitioner has been given the right to recover possession how the legal representatives of Tahir Ali could recover possession of the property? Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and deserves to be rejected. The crux of the matter remains that the suit in question is a suit for redemption of mortgage, the transaction having alleged to have been entered into between the mortgagor ( the plaintiff Tahir Ali) and the mortgagee (the defendant Sagar Mal). The petitioner alleging to have purchased the suit property from the alleged true owner during the pendency of this suit cannot be considered even a remotely concerned party; what to say of necessary party, the petitioner is not even 4 a proper party to this suit. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the ill-conceived application filed by the petitioner seeking to intervene in this suit for redemption of mortgage in order to set up his own title to the suit property. The error, of course, has been on the part of the learned trial court in not rejecting such frivolous application with costs. Though in this matter, looking to the overall circumstances this aspect of costs is left at that only; however, it appears appropriate and hence is observed that while dealing with a civil suit when the court is called upon to deal with such application for intervention it would be justified in putting the applicant/s to adequate terms of costs and taking security for costs even before taking up the application for consideration. The petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/