RATI RAM Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (J), SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 5.5.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, allowing the application of the contesting respondents to be impleaded in the suit under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10, C.P.C.

(3.) It appears that during the pendency of the suit, contesting respondents filed an application for their impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10, C.P.C. The said application, according to the facts stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, was allowed without affording opportunity to the petitioner to file objection, while, from the facts stated in the impugned order, it is apparent that it was not necessary, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, to provide any opportunity to the petitioner to object to the impugned order passed by the trial court. From the impugned order, it is also apparent that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to file objections but no such objection was filed by the petitioner against the application filed by the contesting respondents, consequently, their application was allowed. Even after allowing the said application, three days', time was granted to the petitioner to file objection, if any, but no objection was filed, instead he filed revision in the Court below and after his revision was dismissed, he approached this Court by means of this petition. In the present case provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. are fully applicable. As the contesting respondents purchased the property in dispute from its erstwhile owners, they were legally entitled to be impleaded as parties in the suit. The Courts below, therefore, did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in allowing their application. It is, however, observed that even after the application was allowed, the petitioner still has got any objection against the impugned orders, he will be at liberty to raise such objections at the time of hearing of the suit.