JUDGMENT
Amar Dutt, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Jalandhar.
2. Bimla Devi had brought a suit for declaration and injunction against respondents-1 to 6 claiming to be the heirs of Devi Dyal in whose favour a succession certificate had already been granted. During the pendency of the suit, Vijay Laxmi wife of Babu Lal had filed on application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that she, along with her husband, had been staying in the property in dispute for the last 30 years, where her husband Babu Lal had been doing the work of ironing clothes. During this period, she and her husband had been looking after Devi Dyal like their father and said Devi Dyal had made her the owner of H. No. 112, RA, Bazar Top Khana, Jalandhar. She also asserted that Devi Dyal had died in her hands and she had made all expenses of medicines, etc. and the parties to the suit had conspired to grab the property in dispute by concealing the fact of her ownership and, therefore, she should be impleaded as a respondent. This application was contested on the ground that the same was not legally maintainable and Vijay Laxmi had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was contended that the application was neither the legal heir of the deceased Devi Dyal nor had she any right over the property in dispute. The plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased and the applicant is trying to grab his estate. The civil Judge (Junior Division) had after taking into consideration the arguments canvassed before it accepted the application and this has occasioned the filing of the present revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The impugned order is sought to be assailed primarily on the ground that where the plaintiff has an objection to the impleading of a person as a defendant, the court should not allow the application. This view is based on the principle that the plaintiff who is the architect of the suit is entitled to implead any person as a party and he may at his own risk insist on not seeking any relief against any particular person. The result would be that if any decree is passed in a suit, it would not be effected against a person who has not been arrayed as a defendant. This rule, has been dilated upon in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors., A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886 and in para 13, their Lordships formulated the following considerations:-
“1. that the question of addition of parties under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular cases but in some case, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Code;
2. That in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of litigation;
3. Where the subject matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status of a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy;
4. The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act;
5. In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission;
6. The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the court, but generations to come and in view of that consideration, the rule of ‘present interest’ evolved by case law relating to disputes about property, does not apply with full force; and
7. The rule laid down in Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. it is narrower in one sense and wider in another.”
5. In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the applicant-respondent who is evidently in possession of the suit property was seeking intervention with a view to get a decision in relation to her alleged right to succeed to the estate of Devi Dayal. The other parties in the suit are the legal heirs of Devi Dayal who are pressing their claim on the ground that they have obtained a succession certificate in relation to this estate.
6. In these circumstances, where the parties were seeking a declaration of status/legal character, the trial court has rather than forcing the applicant-respondent to file a suit for getting her rights declared, has allowed her to be impleaded as a party so that the matter could be set at rest in the present suit itself. The view taken by the court below does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction which may require rectification at the hands of this court.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.