ORDER : The petitioner has invoked this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge to an order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge NO.3, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short). The facts in nut shell are that the petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract in relation to agreement to sell dated 27.9.1996. The said suit came to be decreed ex-parte qua defendants nos.3 and 4. The defendant no.3 Ram Niranjan – respondent no.6 herein alongwith Anirudh Sharma respondent no.7 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.12.2016. In the said application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant no.4 Ram Niranjan clearly stated that he had gifted the property to Anirudh Sharma so as to justify his joining hands with him in the said application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The petitioner objected to Anirudh Sharma’s joining as an applicant in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, filed an application dated 12.7.2018 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code. It was contended that Anirudh Sharma was nobody to the lis and merely because the property has been gifted to him, he does not get right to become an applicant in the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. The petitioner had essentially objected to Anirudh Sharma joining the hands with the original defendant no.4. The learned trial court vide its order dated 19.10.2018 rejected the petitioner’s aforesaid application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code, inter alia, observing that Anirudh Sharma , the applicant no.2 having stepped into the shoes of the original applicant no.1 Ram Niranjan is justified in joining hands with the applicant no.1 and his name cannot be deleted. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner oppugning the order contended that as far as application under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, only the original defendant Ram Niranjan against whom ex-parte proceedings had been taken, had a locus to maintain the application. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner oppugning the order contended that as far as application under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, only the original defendant Ram Niranjan against whom ex-parte proceedings had been taken, had a locus to maintain the application. Regardless of the fact that the said property is now vested in Anirudh Sharma, neither he can inter-middle in the suit proceedings nor can he maintain the present application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Argument of Mr. Dave had been that after setting aside of the decree, in case the suit is restored, the applicant no.2-Anirudh Shrama (respondent no.7 herein) may have a cause or reason to get his impleadment, that too, after seeking due leave from the court. However, entry of respondent no.7-applicant no.2 in the manner attempted to is not permissible, submitted learned counsel. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that technically the petitioner may have a case because until and unless the suit is restored to its original number, the person in whom, the property in question has vested by way of gift, cannot pounce in the proceedings. As far as seeking setting aside of the decree is concerned, it was essentially the original defendant alone, who had cause of action to maintain such an application. Be that as it may, the technicalities should not defeat the cause and ends of justice. As the learned trial court has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court does not find it to be a fit case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No substantial injustice or illegality affecting petitioner’s right has been caused by way of the order impugned. In any case, according to petitioner’s own saying the respondent no.7-applicant no.2 Anirudh Sharma can very well maintain an application seeking his impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having accrued right, interest and title in the property. Hence, his joining as an applicant in the application for setting aside ex-parte decree cannot be faulted with. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails.