MOHD SIDDIQUE Vs. MAQBOOL BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on M.(C.) P.No. 1462/2005 under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. filed by respondents No. 2 to 6, M.(C.) P.No. 1033/2005 filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, M.(C.) P.No. 1463/2005, an application filed by respondents No. 2 to 6 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, I.A. No. 2599/2005 filed by the applicants Sajeeda Riyashat Seikh and Sahara Begum for impleading them in the appeal as necessary parties.

(2.) IT is not disputed that cross-objection has been filed within one month from the date of service of notice on the respondents. The cross-objection filed by respondents No. 2 to 6 shall be heard along with the appeal. Undisputedly Karim Baksh and Mohammed Akhtar are the sons of Maula Baksh. Maula Baksh, Karim Baksh and Mohammed Akhtar are no more. The appellants are the sons of Karim. Baksh and the respondents are the legal heirs of

(3.) THE appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree filed this appeal. Admittedly respondent No. 1 also filed an appeal against dismissed of her suit which she has preferred for partition and respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed cross- objection before this Court. Sajeeda Riyashat Seikh and Sahara Begum were not parties in both the suits. They for the first time have come forward with this application for affording themselves an opportunity of hearing in this appeal on the ground that they are real sisters of the appellants. The judgment and decree passed by Court below does not bind these applicants. If they have any interest/right in the suit property, that right still lies with them. Order 1 Rule 3A of the C.RC. empowers the Court in pases where delay may be caused to order separate trials or other orders expedient in the interest of justice. In the instant case, at this juncture, if applicants are allowed to join as parties in the appeal, the same v. 11 unnecessarily cause delay in disposal of the long pending lis. If they have any right, they can file separate suit to enforce the same. With these observations, LA. No. 2599/2005 stands disposed of.