Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Rai And Anr. vs Parminder Singh And Ors. on 5 June, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)98PLR661
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge Ludhiana, dated August 7, 1987, holding that the appeal filed by defendants 2 to 4 in the suit was not maintainable.
2. The facts :--
Parminder Singh, a tenant, filed an interpleader suit under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) on the ground that two sets of claimants, viz, defendant No. 1 on the one hand and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 on the other, were claiming the rent from him. A declaration was sought from the Court as whom he was bound to pay the rent. The trial Court after entering into the suit observed as under :--
"The issues in this case on these pleadings were framed, but I am of the view that, the defendants should be asked to inter-plead between themselves, so as to decide the question of title which is correct procedure to dispose of such suits under Order 35, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the defendants No. 2 to 6 has submitted that the tenant cannot question the title of his landlord during the continuance of tenancy. In the present case, the pleadings would show that the question of title between defendant No. 1 on the one hand and the defendants No. 2 to 6 on the other hand, is involved and both the parties claim title through original owner, i. e. Board of Foreign Mission and not the title of landlord at the commencement of tenancy So it is a fit case where the provisions of Order 35 C.P.C. are applicable About the merits of allegations, the matter has to be adjudicated upon, after the defendants interplead between themselves and rights are decided after giving them opportunities to prove their respective cases Vide detailed order dated 28-5-1985 of this Court, intimation of this suit was also sent to the learned Rent Controller under Order 35, Rule 3, C.P.C. However, as the defendant No. 1 has already filed a suit claiming title to the property in dispute, it is directed that defendant No. 1 shall act as plaintiff in the suit and defendants No. 2 to 6 as defendants Plaintiff shall keep on depositing the arrears of rent in this Court. Title of claim be filed by defendant No. 1 first."
3. Defendants No. 2 to 4, feeling aggrieved against this order, challenged the same before the first appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
4. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the appellate Court. The trial Judge did not decide any issue between the parties and after holding which of the rival parties would be deemed to be a plaintiff and defendants to the suit proceeded to try the suit on merits. In an interpleader suit, the original plaintiff' is not claiming any title to the property. It is the rival defendants who are claiming title to the property In fact, the dispute is between the rival defendants and not between the plaintiff and the defendants to the suit. The trial Judge his rightly held that one set of claimants to the property will act as a plaintiff and the other set of claimants as a defendant to the suit. The rival contentions of the defendants, who are interpleaders, will be gone into in the suit. The right of Parminder Singh who was a tenant, would be safeguarded by holding that he would go on depositing the rent in the Court After the decision of the suit, whosoever is declared to be the landlord, will receive the rent from the Court. The order passed by the trial Judge was an interim order. There was no decision on any issue affecting the merits in the controversy, I find BO infirmity in the order passed by the learned appellate Judge.
5. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Judge on July 23, 1990 and the trial Judge will dispose of the suit expeditiously.