ANEETA DEVI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner/applicant has come up in writ jurisdiction challenging the order dated 3 Feb. 2015 passed by the Appellate Court under Sec. 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 whereby the petitioner's application (paper no. 18Ga) for impleadment has been rejected.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent/landlord filed a suit against the first respondent.

(3.) It is contended that the third respondent, Jamaluddin has entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant in respect to the property in dispute on 20 Sept. 2001, however, the property was subsequently sold to the second respondent, Azmatullah hence the present application for impleadment to the appeal was filed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already preferred a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.