CR 712/03 - Gopi Kishan Vs. Hari Kishan & Ors. Judgment dt.9.4.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.712/2003 Gopi Kishan Vs. Hari Kishan & Ors. Date of order : 9th April, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI None present. ----- 1. Perused the record. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.2003 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment filed by application Gopi Kishan Taparia. 3. In suit filed for eviction by the plaintiff Hari Kishan against Shankar Lal S/o Shri Gordhan Dass Taparia, the plaintiff had impleaded defendant No.2 as Fancy Store, Sadar Bazar, Nokha who was alleged to sub-tenant of the defendant No.1. The applicant Gopi Kishan Taparia claimed to be proprietor of the said Fancy Store, defendant No.2 and, therefore, sought to be impleaded as a defendant in the said suit. The said application was opposed by he plaintiff on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the plaintiff and he has not produced any document showing the proprietorship over the said concern defendant No.2 and the documents produced by him indicated that he was CR 712/03 - Gopi Kishan Vs. Hari Kishan & Ors. Judgment dt.9.4.09 2/3 proprietor of M/s Shree Fancy Store and not merely Fancy Store, Sadar Bazar, Nokha. He has also not produced any rent receipts establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the plaintiff and, therefore, the trial court found that the applicant had no lis in the matter involved before learned trial court and the application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has correctly applied the principles of law and in the absence of any interest in the lis established by the applicant Gopi Kishan, has rightly rejected the application filed by the him under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment. If the applicant was really proprietor of the defendant No.2 already impleaded in the suit, he was always at liberty to contest the said suit but he cannot seek impleadment separately in the said suit without prima facie establishing his interest in the said lis. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned trial court has rightly rejected his application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 5. This Court finds no force in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this judgment be sent to both the parties. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. CR 712/03 - Gopi Kishan Vs. Hari Kishan & Ors. Judgment dt.9.4.09 3/3 itemNo.9 babulal