HEM CHAND KHANNA Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed only against an order directing the caveator to be impleaded as respondent No. 3. The caveator was the allottee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the law in respect of whether the allottee should be impleaded or not, has been settled by this Court in Shri Swarup Narain Srivastava v. The IVth Addl. District Judge and others, 1994 5 JT 221 and Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others, 1994 1 SCC 646. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion in this petition which is filed against an interlocutory order. But we make it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to raise the question at the time of disposal of the writ petition whether the allottee could be impleaded or not in view of the decision of this Court.

(2.) The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.