SAROJ GOYAL Vs. MUNSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.8.1996 and 11.9.1996, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 respectively.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners cannot be forced to implead any person and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 are wholly illegal as they have been p without considering the fact that no right could accrue for impleadment of respondent Nos. 12 to 19 in the suit as they had no right or title over the property in dispute on the basis of the sale-deeds, which have been found to be defective and cancelled. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 12 to 19 are only trying to harass the petitioners in getting themselves impleaded so that they may try to interfere in their possession over the property in dispute.