ISMILE BHAI Vs. TEJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the impugned order dated 6.3.2010 (Annex.P-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Dungarpur allowing application filed by the respondents No. 4 to 6 (applicants) under Order 1, Rule 10 in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs, and allowed to array them as party-defendants as they claimed that the suit property, which was agreed to be sold by respondents No. 1 to 3, was ancestral property and therefore, the respondents No. 1 to 3 had no right to agree to sell the same to the present petitioners-plaintiffs without partition of the ancestral property.

(2.) The learned Court below after discussing the case-laws cited before it, by a detailed order dated 6.3.2010, found it appropriate to implead the respondents No. 4 to 6 as party-defendants in the present suit for specific performance.

(3.) Having the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the learned Court below does not any interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which appears to be logically correct order in the narrow scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.