- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 27.4.2005 passed by the court below. It is not in dispute that the sale deed was executed in favour of Raj Devi and she was not arrayed as party either at the stage of the suit or at the appellate stage and a judgment was rendered against her on 24.5.2002. Thereafter, an application was moved by Raj Devi under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with order 41 Rule 21 CPC as well as under Section 151 CPC along with an application for condonation of delay, wherein she has stated that she is the rightful owner on the basis of the sale deed and the interest of the applicant is to be adjudicated before any judgment is rendered against her. She has further prayed that the judgment rendered against her may be set aside and she may be given opportunity of hearing. The said application was allowed vide impugned order. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the said application is not maintainable at the instance of third party to which learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that Section 146 CPC confers power upon Raj Devi to move an application for adjudication of her right in accordance with law as she is the rightful owner on the basis of the sale deed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Surya Dev Singh v. The District Judge, Azamgarh and others, 1981 All.L.J. 666.
(3.) THE Court has considered the aforesaid judgment and the provisions contained in CPC and does not find any irregularity in the impugned order. Revision is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.;