Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate for the contesting respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 5.8.2005 and 14.10.2005 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively rejecting the impleadment application of the petitioners. A suit was filed for permanent injunction against one Narendra Singh. The petitioners filed an application for impleadment which has been rejected by means of the impugned orders.
(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that it is well settled law that the object of the impleadment is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to settle the disputed questions in a single suit. The question of title and possession regarding land in dispute is to be decided in favour of either parties and the petitioners claimed their right as co-purchaser of the land in dispute. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioners on two decisions; Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, 1992, Alld. C.J. 888 : 1992 SCFBRC 223. Reliance has been placed on Paragraph 12 of the said decision where the Apex Court had ruled that a declaratory judgment in respect of a disputed status will be binding not only upon parties actually before the Court but also upon persons claiming through them respectively and, therefore, in a suit relating to property, a person may be added as a party, if he is able to establish that he has a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of litigation. The other decision relied upon is Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 577 : 1999 (2) ARC 7 : 1999 SCFBRC 211. This again is a decision on the question that the applicant is necessary party, if his right is directly involved in the suit and, therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, his impleadment application should not be rejected. Sri Sanjay Agarwal Advocate, appearing for the contesting respondents has placed reliance on a decision, 2004 (2) A.R.C. 8.;