Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7046 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7864 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- Yatindra Nath Gupta (Deceased) And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Saran Counsel for Respondent :- Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri S.S. Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord - respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 22nd May, 2023 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Etawah disposing of an application bearing Paper No.- 33-C in P.A. No.- 10 of 2018, whereby the daughters of late Yatindra Nath Gupta, the original release applicants were directed to be impleaded as opposite parties in the case. 3. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially when an application for substitution was filed by the sons, who were the heirs of late Yatindra Nath Gupta, an objection came to be raised by the tenant-respondents that two daughters of late Yatindra Nath Gupta should also have been impleaded as release applicants. 4. In view of the objections so raised, it transpires that the Court directed under its order dated 19th August, 2019 asking the newly impleaded heirs of the late Yatindra Nath Gupta, namely the respondent herein to take appropriate steps for getting the daughters impleaded as the co-applicants but instead of doing the same, the respondents moved an application for recall of the said order which came to be rejected on 16th December, 2021 with a cost of Rs.500/- and it is, thereafter again misc. application was filed for review which came to be rejected on 22nd July, 2022 and yet the respondents moved another misc. application requesting the court to direct for impleadment the daughters as opposite parties in the case which, according to the petitioner, should not have been allowed and hence, the order passed by the said authority deserves to be set aside. 5. Countering the submission so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that plaintiff being dominus litis in the suit, could not compel the plaintiff to get impleaded certain more parties as co-plaintiffs while the court cannot itself direct for impleadment of the parties as plaintiffs. 6. It is argued that in any suit which is brought by the plaintiff is confined to the relief claimed by the plaintiff against certain defendants and a third party cannot be aggrieved by such decree that it would not bind such party being not party to the proceedings. 7. It is also argued that in the case of landlord tenant dispute, the co-owner was always not a necessary party and the decree for eviction or release is passed in favour of landlords, may be only one of them has instituted for release. It is also submitted that title is never germane in the suit which relates to an eviction of the tenant or otherwise misc. case of the release application filed for release of the property by the tenant on the ground of bona fide need or building having gone in a dilapidated stage. It is thus contended that on this principle of law the order cannot be faulted with and the daughters of the deceased landlord were rightly got impleaded as respondents. 8. Sri Praveen Kumar has further submitted that daughters of late Yatindra Nath Gupta are married and have represented themselves in the suit to invite the release in favour of their brother released and have relinquished their claims by filing affidavits in favour of the landlord respondents. However, he submits that he has no objection if they are directed to be transposed as plaintiffs/ the release applicants in the case but in any manner this controversy should not detain court any longer as it would unnecessary result in delay in the disposal of the P.A. case. 9. In view of the consent so given by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and the fact that daughters of late Yatindra Nath Gupta have already put in appearance by filing vakalatnama and also filed their affidavits in favour of the landlord respondents and in order to ensure that P.A. case does not get delayed any further in view of the dispute of the impleadment of the parties necessary or proper, I consider it appropriate to direct for transposition of the daughters impleaded in the case, as plaintiffs/ release applicants. 10. The applicants will do the needful in the court below before the prescribed authority in the release application in getting them transposed as release applicants within a period of two weeks from today. 11. Since the P.A. Case is of the year 2018, it is hereby further provided that endeavour of the prescribed authority would be to conclude the proceedings of P.A. Case No.- 10 of 2018 within a maximum period of three months of transposition of daughters of late Yatindra Nath Gupta as release applicants by the respondents, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad