Shashi Kant Gupta, J This is an Impleadment Application filed by the applicant namely Malik Shah Nawaz Wali Khan stating that the property in dispute was purchased by him on 20.09.1996, as such, he is the necessary and proper party to the present writ petition. 2. Earlier also, the applicant Malik Shah Nawaz Wali Khan had moved a similar application for impleading him as party before the lower Appellate Court in Appeal No. 110 of 1985. The said application was rejected by order dated 31.07.2010 holding that the property, which has been purchased by the applicant, is not the disputed portion of the property and the said application was filed with malafide intention to delay the proceeding of the case. It was also held by the lower Appellate Court that the applicant is neither a necessary party nor his rights are affected. 3. It is also notable that the release application was filed in the year 1984 and matter is pending since last 28 years but unfortunately till date the matter has not attained finality. The Appellate court below has already held that the property in dispute was not the property, which has been purchased by the applicant, as such, the applicant is neither a necessary party nor his rights are affected. 4. The impleadment application was rejected on 31.07.2010 by the Court below but the said order was never challenged by the applicant. Today, when the matter was taken up for final disposal after several adjournments as unlisted, the applicant filed the present impleadment application. It appears that the present application has been filed by the applicant mainly to delay the disposal of the present writ petition. 5. It is also notable that even though the present writ petition is pending since 24.10.2010, the impleadment application has been filed by the applicant today i.e. after more than 1-1/2 years without any plausible explanation with regard to delay. Thus, the impleadment application filed at the last stage of the writ petition without challenging the earlier order of the court below rejecting the impleadment applicant can not be accepted as bonafide. 6. In view of the above, the impleadment application is dismissed.