SHASHI SURANA Vs. ANANI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.12.208 whereby the trial court has rejected the petitioner's-applicant's application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC at the stage of defendant's evidence, hence, this writ petition.

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner it is true that petitioner purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit on 31.8.2004 and moved the application for being impleaded as party in the trial court on 22nd Sept., 2008 and though there is a delay, but during this period no additional right accrued in favour of the plaintiff or any other party. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial court proceeded on assumption while passing the impugned order. The trial court assumed that the applicant will submit new written statement and court will have to frame new issues and also applicant will cross-examine the plaintiff and the plaintiff's witnesses who have already been cross-examined by appellant's predecessor in title who is already party defendant in the suit and the court will have to summon the witnesses for cross-examination and that will cause the delay unnecessarily.