R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10.12.1998 whereby the application filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 for impleadment in the suit as parties, was allowed by the trial Court and the order dated 15.7.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 3, Ghanshyam Das, was the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. He sold the said shop in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5. After getting the sale deed executed in their favour, respondents No. 4 and 5 applied for their impleadment in the suit which was already pending in the Court of Judge Small Causes. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. Challenging the validity of the said order, a revision was filed by the petitioner. The said revision was dismissed by the Court. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 4 and 5 have got no right to be impleaded in the suit. It has also been urged that under the similar circumstances application for impleadment was dismissed in another case, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.;