Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.8.1996 and 11.9.1996, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 respectively. The brief facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 50 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against defendants-respondents No. 1 to 9 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Mathura. The relief sought in this suit was for a permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs-petitioners are entitled to the property in dispute and defendants-respondents No. 1 to 9 have no right over the same. It is alleged in the plaint, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, that right of defendants-respondents No. 1 to 9 on the property in dispute on the basis of alleged fictitious sale-deeds in their favour was being disputed and that it was averred that the petitioners are in possession over the same. It has been prayed in the suit that plaintiff's possession may not be interfered by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit respondent Nos. 12 to 19 filed an impleadment application on 1.2.1996 that they may be impleaded in the suit as they had purchased the property from Munshi Lal. An objection was filed by the petitioners against the impleadment application, which was decided against the petitioners by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Mathura vide order dated 28.8.1996. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.1996, a revision was filed before the District Judge, Mathura. The District Judge, Mathura vide order dated 11.9.1996 dismissed the revision.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners cannot be forced to implead any person and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 are wholly illegal as they have been p without considering the fact that no right could accrue for impleadment of respondent Nos. 12 to 19 in the suit as they had no right or title over the property in dispute on the basis of the sale-deeds, which have been found to be defective and cancelled. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 12 to 19 are only trying to harass the petitioners in getting themselves impleaded so that they may try to interfere in their possession over the property in dispute. If the necessary parties are not impleaded, the suit can be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. However, it would be in the interest of substantial justice that all the concerned parties including respondent Nos. 12 to 19 must be heard with regard to the disputed rights. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if they are heard. On the contrary, if they are prevented from impleadment and hearing, injustice may be caused to them as they claim right on the property in dispute. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of substantial justice that respondent Nos. 12 to 19 are impleaded and the dispute between the parties is decided once for all after hearing all the persons concerned.;