S.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.)The plaintiff had filed this suit for partition of the property in Schedule A to the plaint and also for rendition of accounts. One of the properties which was sought to be partitioned was a plot of land measuring 7,389 sq. yards situated at 483/49A in Revenue Estate of Jhilmil, Tahirpur M.S. 6, Delhi Shahadara Border, close to Delhi Ghaziabad Trunk Road having about 20 sheds therein. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code was filed. On February 14, 1984 this Court passed a final decree in terms of the compromise exhibit C-1. Under this decree, the aforesaid property in Jhilmil, Tahirpur had come to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.6. By order dated January 29, 1993 this Court had appointed the plaintiff as receiver of the property in Jhilmil, Tahirpur. On an application having been made by the receiver in Court being IA.No-2987/93 seeking police help to execute the order of this Court, D.C.P., A.C.P. and S.H.O. of the concerned area were directed to help the receiver in removing the trespassers from the said property.
(2.)The present application has now been filed by certain persons claiming themselves to be tenants in different portions of the said property, under Order1 Rule 10(2) CPC for being impleaded as parties in the suit, on the allegations that they were in lawful possession of their respective portions and were carrying on their business and as such they could not be removed by the receiver in execution of the orders passed by this Court and the decree & order are stated to have been obtained by misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the judgment reported as Hira Lal Patni Vs. Loonkaran Sethiya, AIR 1962 SC 21 to contend that the receiver cannot, under orders of this Court, remove a person who is not a party to the suit. He also relied upon the judgment reported as Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Mrs.Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097 to contend that possession cannot be recovered from him even on the assumption that he has no right to remain on the property and he cannot be dispossessed except by recourse to law. In my opinion, none of these judgments are of any assistance to the applicants. Applicants must first establish a legal right to be in occupation of the property and secondly he must show that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code is maintainable.
(3.)Under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has the - power to add parties to the suit at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just. As there are no proceedings in the suit pending before the Court, in my opinion, no application under Order I Rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code will be maintainable. Proceedings in the suit come to an end on the passing of the decree. When all disputes in the case have been adjudicated by the Court, in my opinion, this provision cannot be made use of by any person. Proceedings must be alive before the Court when an application for impleading a party can be considered by the Court. In my opinion, therefore, the application is not maintainable.