- (1.) MR. Ashish Ghosh filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as a defendant in the suit filed by the appellant. His application was rejected by ex parte order by the trial Court on 15. 12. 1993. MR. Ashish Ghosh thereafter filed an application for recalling the above order dated 15. 12. 1993. This application was put up for order on 20. 12. 1995, on which date it was allowed and the aforesaid order dated 15-12-1993, rejecting the application for impleadment, was recalled. The appellant thereafter filed an application for recall of the said order dated 20. 2. 1995, which has been rejected by the trial court on 26. 4. 1995. Seine aggrieved by the said orders the appellant filed a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19. 7. 1995. Hence this appeal.
(2.) THIS appeal has to be dismissed on two grounds, viz. (i) Mr. Ashish Ghosh being necessary party was neither impieaded in the writ petition nor in this appeal; and (ii) the Special Appeal is not maintainable. Mr. Ashish Ghosh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for his impleadment as defendant in the suit, filed by the appellant. This application having been rejected by the trial Court on 15. 12. 1993 he applied for recall of that order and this application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 20. 2. 1995, whereby the order rejecting the application for impleadment was recalled and the said application was restored to its original number. Appellant's application for recall of the order dated 20. 2. 1995 was rejected on 26. 4. 1995. Both the orders dated 20. 2. 1995 and 26. 4. 1995 were passed in favour of Mr. Ashish Ghosh. The appellant filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders dated 20. 2. 1995 and 26. 4. 1995 without impleading Mr. Ashish Ghosh. After his writ petition was dismissed he has filed this appeal. But again Mr. Ashish Ghosh has not been impieaded as a party. Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786, has laid down that in a writ of certiorar' both, the Tribunal or the Authority, which has passed the order and the party in whose favour the said order has been passed, are necessary parties and if any of them is not impieaded as a party to the writ petition, the writ is incompetent and is not maintainable. The writ petition and the Special Appeal, filed by the appellant, were thus not maintainable. Chanter VIII Rule 5 of this Court's Rules bars Special Appeal against a judgment or a learned Single Judge given in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award - (a) of a Tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In the instant case the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of a Court in exercise of the power conferred on it by the Code of Civil Procedure; a subject enumerated in the concurrent List.
(3.) THIS appeal, as such, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;