First respondent filed a second application stating it to be under Order 30 Rule 4 of the for getting himself impleaded.
During the pendency of the said revision the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial companyrt on 26.5.1994 and the decree was companyfirmed in appeal by the District Court on 29.11.1994.
During the pendency of the suit, first respondent in this appeal who is the son of Hanuman Prasad another partner of the firm who died filed an application under Order I Rule 10 2 of the Code of Civil procedure for short the Code to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit.
Facts are these Appellant landlord filed the suit for eviction of his tenant M s. Hanuman Prased Shriram a partnership firm from a building leased out to the firm on the two grounds envisaged in Section 12 1 a F of the Madhya pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
However, that application was also dismissed by the trial companyrt.
This is number a case where learned Single Judge was number aware of the fact that suit was decreed by the trial companyrt and that decree was later companyfirmed by the District Court in appeal.
He then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the earlier order passed by the District Court on 15.3.1994 as well as the latter order passed by the trial companyrt dismissing his second application.
The writ petition was later companyverted into a revision petition.
The application was dismissed by the trial Court against which first respondent filed a revision before the District Court, but the revision was dismissed on 15.3.1994.
The suit was companytested by the firm and written statement for the firm was signed by one of its partners Motiram .
J U R G M E N T THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
A landlord has companye up in challenge Of an Order Passed by a Single Judge Of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, by which the application of first respondent to get himself impleaded as a party in a suit has been granted.
