JUDGMENT
B.P. Jha, J.
1. This civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 24-3-1982.
2. By the impugned order, the Court below added Binda Devi as defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 34, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’. This is a suit for redemption of mortgage bond which was executed by Parmeshwar Sahu to favor of defendant No. 1 Parmeshwar Sahu died and he left behind four sons, namely, Rajendra Sahu, Ramsaran Sahu, Bijoy Kumar Sahu and Sambhoo Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Ramsaran Sahu and Bijoy Kumar Sahu are the plaintiffs. Now, Shambhoo Sahu is dead. It was alleged by Binda Devi that she was the widow of Shambhoo Sahu. Therefore, she filed an application for adding her as a party in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is for this reason that the Courts below added her as a party. It was alleged in the written statement of one set of the defendants that she is the widow of Shambhoo Sahu and as such her presence is necessary for deciding the issue raised in the suit effectually and completely.
3. The plaintiffs dispute the correctness of the claim of Binda Devi. However, she should be added as a party under Order 34 Rule 1 read with order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for the reasons mentioned herein below:
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has seriously contended that in redemption suit the question of title should not be decided. In this connection he has relied on several decisions of different courts in India including the decision of the Privy Council in Radha Kunwar v. Reoti Singh A.I.R. 1961 P.C 18. In all these decisions it has been held that a stranger or a person claming adverse to the plaintiff shall not be added as a party. It is a settled law that when a suit for redemption is brought, then in should be limited between the mortgagor and the mortgagee and no third person should be allowed to join in a suit of this type, but the difficulty arises when the original mortgagor is dead. In the present case, the original mortgagor Parmeshwar Sahu died long ago. The redemption suit has been filed by the sons of Parmeshwar Sahu. Parmeshwar Sahu who had four sons, as mentioned above. The three sons are parties and plaintiffs to the suit and the fourth son Shambhoo Sahu was not represented as plaintiff as he died long ago. It is for this reason that the alleged widow or Shambhoo Sahu, namely, Binda Devi has filed a petition that she should be added as a party in order to decide the case effectually and completely. In a case of this type it is necessary to allow such a party to be added for deciding her claim. If it is found that he was a necessary plaintiff then a joint decree should be passed in her favor along with the plaintiffs. Learned Counsel for the parties have not cited any direct decision to the point raised in the present case. I, therefore, affirm the decision of the Court below. However, I direct the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to the extent of denying the claim of Binda Devi. In the plaint Binda Devi will be added as a defendant. Binda Devi will be entitled to prove her claim. The plaintiffs will be also entitled to rebut the claim of Binda Devi in their evidence. The Court below is directed to decide this issue and pass necessary order at the time of delivery of judgment.
5. The law raised in this case is summarized thus: In redemption suit the mortgagor and the mortgagee will only be necessary party and no third party will be added. In case the original mortgagor is dead and some of his heirs have not joined as the plaintiffs, such heirs can file a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 34 Rule 1 of the Code to be added as a necessary party. The claim of such disputed heir shall be decided in the redemption suit in redemption suit a stranger or a person claiming adverse interest shall not be added as party on any ground whatsoever.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed, but without any cost.