Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.; -- This petition has been preferred for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijnor, whereby the petitioner's impleadment application has been rejected. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice; 3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. It is stated that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 were owners of land in dispute. The respondent no. 6 is tenant of the disputed property. Against the allotment order they filed a revision no. 150 of 1982, which was allowed on 7.5.1984. 5. It is stated that respondent no. 7 in order to avoid his eviction got a fictitious sale deed from respondent no. 3 in favour of his sons, the respondent no. 1 and 2 herein. When the respondent nos. 4 to 6 came to know about the said fraud, they filed a declaratory suit no. 202 of 1986 before the Civil Judge, Bijnor for declaring the said sale deed null and void and a direction was sought against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 to remove the construction from the disputed land. 6. The trial court decreed the suit on 3.10.1997 against the respondent nos. 1,2, 3 and 7. 7. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein filed an appeal no. 143 of 1997. In the meantime, the respondent nos. 4 and 6, whose suit was decreeded, transferred the property in dispute to Smt. Savitri Saluja and others vide sale deed dated 26.7.2004 and 27.2.2006. 8. The petitioner had purchased the said property from Smt. Savitri Saluja and others vide registered sale deed dated 11.8.2008. The petitioner moved an application for the impleadment in the civil appeal no. 143 of 1997 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 9. Sri K.N.Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohit Agrawal submits that indisputably, the petitioner, through a registered sale deed, has purchased the property in dispute and as such he has stepped into the shoes of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, therefore, he is a necessary party. 10. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 9. Sri K.N.Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohit Agrawal submits that indisputably, the petitioner, through a registered sale deed, has purchased the property in dispute and as such he has stepped into the shoes of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, therefore, he is a necessary party. 10. Sri Punit Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the impleadment application has been filed by the petitioner only with a view to delay the proceedings. 11. Sri K.N.Tripathi fairly submitted that the petitioner would not lead any evidence and as such the apprehension of the contesting respondent is unfounded. 12. Be that as it may, it is a common ground that the petitioner has purchased the disputed property and as such the petitioner is a necessary party. Sri Tripathi has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier order of this Court dated 10.5.2012 passed in the Writ Petition No. 4512 of 2002, Ashok Kumar vs. The Court of 1st, Addl. District Judge, Bijnor and others, wherein, the impleadment application was allowed on 10.5.2012. The detail facts of the said writ petition is not relevant in the present case. 13. Sri Punit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has no objection in case, the impleadment application is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner will not adduce any evidence and only to be heard in the matter. 14. In view of the fact that the parties are in agreement to the said effect, the writ petition is allowed. 15. The impugned order dated 3.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijnor is set aside. The learned court is directed to treat the petitioner as a party in the said suit and they will also be heard. 16. No order as to costs.