BALKISHAN BADOLA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant No. 17 has assailed the legality and validity of the order dtd. 22/10/2021 whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

(2.) The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that in a suit for partition and permanent injunction, the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that he has purchased a part of the land, subject-matter of suit, from its co-owners through two registered sale deeds. It was averred that recently, he has come to know that the sellers/defendants may, in conspiracy with the plaintiff, enter into a compromise adversely effecting his rights. Therefore, a prayer was made for his impleadment as defendant. The application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 22/10/2021 which has been impugned herein.

(3.) Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel submitted that on an earlier occasion, the plaintiff has filed an application seeking impleadment of subsequent purchaser of a part of the land, subject-matter of suit for partition, her prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 5/5/2007 which was upheld by this Court vide its order dtd. 30/9/2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3651/2007 : Savitri Devi v. Madan Singh. He further submitted that as per the application filed by the respondent No. 2, he has purchased a part of the land in question through registered sale deed executed in the year 2013; but, the application is inordinately delayed. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dtd. 22/10/2021 be Considered.