S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 16-2-2001, passed by the learned trial Court in Suit No. 35/17 under Section 229-B of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit Smt. Rama Devi v. Smt. Urmila Devi, before the learned trial Court, the opposite party, Smt. Kanti Devi moved an application on 16-2-2001 for impleadment of her name to the suit as a defendant, which was allowed by the learned trial Court the same day. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the papers, on file. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in impleading the opposite party to the suit, as she had no locus standi for the same; that by impleading her to the suit, unnecessary confusion would be created, which may result in miscarriage of justice to the parties and therefore, such an order cannot be allowed to sustain and this revision petition amply deserves for admission.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the papers on file. Smt. Kanti Devi vide her application, dated 16-2-2001, has stated that since she had purchased half share in the land, in dispute from Smt. Rama Devi through a registered sale deed, dated 31-12-1997, executed by her Mukhtar-e-Am, Sri Brij Mohan Sharma, she be impleaded as a defendant to the suit, in question. The learned trial Court vide its order, dated 16-2-2001, has rightly allowed this application, ordering for amendment in the plaint, accordingly, since bona fide dispute of her title was involved. Anyway, the matter is still pending before the learned trial Court and the revisionist has nothing to feel aggrieved or prejudiced by the impugned order as she will certainly get ample opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence, if any, in support of her claim. Moreover, the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, which does not amount to a case or proceedings decided and therefore, I do not see any good ground to admit this revision petition, which very richly deserves for dismissal outright.;