Hon''ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the District Judge, Moradabad in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2011, affirming the Order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, whereby the impleadment application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the respondent no. 2 Mohd. Imran. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, a S.C.C. Revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Moradabad which was rejected by order dated 13.09.2011. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have committed illegality and not considered the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed premises, as such, he is a proper and necessary party.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. Bare perusal of the record further shows that the case pending before the JSCC Court was in between the landlord and the tenant and Court of J.S.C.C. Court has got no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the disputed property. This apart, it is also notable that the plaintiff-respondent in his objection has clearly stated that the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1991 was passed in his favour in Suit No. 730 of 1990, wherein the petitioner was declared as an owner of the disputed property and the said decree is still operative and has not yet been set aside. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his writ petition, rather the writ petition was filed by concealing material facts. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned orders. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned orders and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the courts below.
7. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference.
8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
