IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1011 of 2004 (M/S) Chhedi Ram S/o Sri Ram Swarup R/o Miyan Wala Pargana Parwadoon District Dehradun. ………Petitioner Versus 1. Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III District Dehradun. 2. Additional Civil Judge/Senior Division Dehradun. 3. Smt. Basanti Devi D/o Bhikka Ram R/o 23/15 Khadari Mohalla Dehradun. 4. Sri Atar Singh S/o Shri Johari Singh R/o 23/15 Khadari Mohalla Dehradun. ….Respondents. 5. Sri Sanjai Kumar S/o Chhedi Ram R/o 23/15 Khadri Mohalla Dehradun. ………..Proforma Respondent. Shri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ramji Srivastava, counsel for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.09.2004, passed by revisional court (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court III, 2 Dehradun) in SCCR No. 23 of 2001, Brij Kishore and another Vs. Chhedi Ram and others. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Brij Kishore (plaintiff) instituted SCC suit No. 51 of 1989, against the tenant Atar Singh (present respondent No. 4 in this petition), for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of defendant/tenant. During the pendency of said suit, an application No. 95 C, was moved by Chhedi Ram (present petitioner) for his impleadment in the suit, as a party under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After hearing the parties, the trial court (Judge, Small Cause Courts/Additional Civil Judge-IV, Sr. Div., Dehradun), allowed the application 95C, directing the plaintiff to implead Chhedi Ram, as a party in the suit. Aggrieved by said order dated 13.04.2001, the plaintiff filed revision (SCCR No. 23 of 2001), before the revisional court. Said revision was heard by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court III, Dehradun, and disposed of, vide impugned order dated 25.09.2004, whereby the order passed by the trial court, is reversed. Hence this petition by third party, who sought impleadment before the trial court. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff –Brij Kishore transferred the property in suit to Smt. Brij Bala, vide sale deed dated 05.06.1970, which was declared void by the trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 14.07.1973. But said judgment was reversed by the appellate court (Additional District Judge, Dehradun), vide its judgment and order dated 04.08.1984. Through sale deed dated 05.06.1970, interest in the property got transferred from the plaintiff Brij Kishore to Brij Bala. The petitioner Chhedi Ram has claimed that he has inherited the property on death of Brij Bala on 20.12.1973. The revisional court in the impugned order, has observed said fact in its para-9, but still allowed the revision by holding that the third party has not served any notice on the tenant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the revisional court has committed error of law in treating that the third party has sought its impleadment as plaintiff. Relevancy of whether he served notice or not could have been seen only if the third party sought its impleadment, as plaintiff. The petitioner has simply sought impleadment in the suit, as a party under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. The trial court, vide its order dated 4 13.04.2001, has nowhere directed to implead the petitioner as plaintiff. Therefore, impugned order dated 25.09.2004, passed by revisional court, being erroneous in law, is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 25.09.2004, passed in SCCR No. 23 of 2001, by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court III, is quashed. Order dated 13.04.2001, passed by the trial court is restored. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:03.09.2009 Sweta