JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri C.P. Dwivedi for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed against the orders of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jaunpur dated 19.01.2016 rejecting application for impleadment of the petitioners as respondents in the appeal. 3. Sukhram filed a suit for declaration of his right over the property in dispute. In the plaint Baburam and Bhawani Prasad were impleaded as defendants. In paragraph-2 of the plaint it has been stated that partition amongst persons of the family (pedigree has been given in the Schedule of the plaint) had taken place 25-26 years ago and the property in dispute fell in the share of Jhagadu Ram as well as Bhawani Prasad. This suit was decreed by the trial court. After decree Babu Ram filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.3 of 2003). It may be mentioned that according to the pedigree Baburam belonged to branch of plaintiff Sukhram while Bhawani Prasad, who belonged to other branch did not file any appeal from the aforesaid decree. In the appeal the petitioners moved an application for their impleadment as respondents in the appeal. In the impleadment application it has been stated that before the trial court an application (232C) through some impostor has been moved for their impleadment but later on it was got dismissed as withdrawn. The appellate court after hearing the parties found that before the trial court an application was moved by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendant in the suit, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, they were not entitled to be impleaded in the appeal. On this finding the impleadment application has been rejected. Hence, this petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the plaint allegation itself the entire property was ancestral. The petitioners have been shown to be belonging to the branch of the defendant-2, who belonged to the same family. It has been wrongly alleged in the plaint that private partition took place amongst the co-sharers 25-26 years ago. Before the trial court the application for impleadment of the petitioners was moved through some impostor which was later on got dismissed as withdrawn. Since the property in dispute was ancestral property and the petitioners are from the same family as such they are necessary and proper parties. Before the trial court the application for impleadment of the petitioners was moved through some impostor which was later on got dismissed as withdrawn. Since the property in dispute was ancestral property and the petitioners are from the same family as such they are necessary and proper parties. The petitioners in their application have clearly denied filing of impleadment application (232 C) but appellate court had decided this issue without having any report from Hand Writing Expert in respect of signatures of the petitioners on the appeal as well as on the application. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is apparent that the petitioners did no file any application for obtaining expert opinion in respect of their signatures before the trial court as such they cannot be permitted to take fresh ground. In this respect, the appellate court has recorded a definite finding that the application 232C was moved by the petitioners, which was later on got dismissed as withdrawn. The fact that Bhawani Prasad, who belonged to branch of the petitioners has not challenged the decree of the trial court, which is relevant to the fact of private partition as pleaded by plaintiff and has been admitted by Bhawani Prasad belonging to the branch of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, if the petitioners feel aggrieved they can themselves file a separate suit for declaration of their rights before appropriate Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.