Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 982 (ALL)

Gyatri Devi v. A. D. J. , Allahabad

2013-04-01

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.: - List revised. 2. None present on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present. 3. The present petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.11.1999 (annexure 8 to the writ petition) by which the impleadment application of the petitioners to implead them as defendants in Original Suit No. 705 of 1982 was rejected. 4. Case of the petitioners is that the property in dispute was sold by Ganga Dei to Rajnath and Rajnath sold a part of the property in 1978 to Bipul Agrawal and Associates. In the year 1982, Suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.5.1975 by respondent no. 3 alleging herself to be heir of Ganga Dei. During pendency of the Suit in the year 1990, Bipul Agrawal and Associates sold a part of the property to the petitioners, hence, the impleadment application was given under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The possession was also delivered to them over part of the property which was transferred in his favour. There is a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1990 in favour of the applicant-petitioners. The impleadment application was rejected on 26.10.1994 on the ground that they were not necessary parties. Against that the Revision was preferred, however, the lower revisional court by judgment and order dated 6.11.1999 dismissed the Revision on the ground that the Suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and no title was going to be decided. 5. By interim order dated 14.12.1999 further proceeding in the Suit was stayed. 6. The transfer was during pendency of the Suit. The petitioners who purchased the property from defendants may not be necessary parties but are interested parties as their interest will be affected by the result of the Suit, hence, they are proper party for disposal of the case. Hence, in view of the fact, impugned order dated 6.11.1999 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to consider the application of the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment to implead them. Since the Suit is of the year 1982, hence, the trial court is expected to conclude the proceeding after hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible without unreasonable delay. 7. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. Interim order dated 14.12.1999 is hereby discharged. Since the Suit is of the year 1982, hence, the trial court is expected to conclude the proceeding after hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible without unreasonable delay. 7. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. Interim order dated 14.12.1999 is hereby discharged. No order as to cost.