JUDGMENT
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.
1. The trial court has allowed the application moved by Harbanslal and Rameshwar Lal under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for being added as a party to the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that neither Harbanslal nor Rameshwarlal were directly interested in the subject matter of the suit, as such they should not have been ordered to be added as party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. Learned Counsel for the newly added defendants expressed an apprehension that contradictory decrees may not be passed in the suits filed by the petitioners Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal and so it was necessary for the trial court to add Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal as party to the suit filed by the petitioner. It cannot be denied that Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal have no direct interest in the sucject matter of the suit.
2. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 86 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as aparty, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation when subject matter is declaration, such persons may be added as parties in whose presence the court would be in a better position to effectual and completely adjudicate upon the controversy in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner and the two newly added defenders have filed three separate suits. They have got their separate properties. No one is interested in the property of the other party. The question however which is common between them, relates to the closure of the ‘Nala’ which is said to be the subject matter of dispute between the parties. The object that contradictory order or decrees may not be passed in the three suits can be well achieved if the trial court hears the three suits filed by the petitioner and by Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal together and decide them also together either by a common order or separate orders, but passed at the same time, In that view of the matter the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the respondent that contradictory decrees may not be passed would be avoided when all the three suits are decided together. However, as Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal have no direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, the trial court was not justified in adding them as parties to the suit filed by the petitioner as it was not necessary to make the aforesaid two persons as defendants in the suit for effectual decision of his suit.
3. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Munsif, Sangaria dated May 13, 1985 is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to try and decide the three suits filed by the petitioner Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal together, as they are pending in the same court. The three suits may be decided by a common judgment or by separate judgments which may be pronounced at the same time.