ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assailed the validity of the order dated 4.8.2014 by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order dated 15.9.2014 by which application for review filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated that the respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 seeking the relief of the specific performance of the contract on the strength of agreement dated 2.2.2008. The petitioner during the course of the suit filed an application for impleadment, which has been rejected by the trial Court by impugned order dated 4.8.2014 Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review which has also been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 15.9.2014. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I perused the record. 5. On perusal of the agreement dated 2.2.2008, it is evident that the same contains a condition that the respondent No.1 shall not be responsible for obtaining the consent of the Hitesh Agarwal and Purshottam Das, present petitioner herein. 6. On perusal of judgment and decree dated 28.8.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/1999. It is evident that the defendants No.1 to 6 have been restrained from alienating the property in question without the consent of the present petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is a co-owner and is vitally interested in the subject matter of the suit. In case any decree is passed, the same will prejudicially affect the interest of the petitioner in the property. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. It is accordingly quashed. The application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. Let the copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by fax. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. R. K. Soni for petitioner; None for respondent No.1; P. C. Chandil for respondent No.2.