Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) The applicant is assailing the order dated 5 December 2015, passed by the revisional court/District Judge, Hapur, in Civil Revision No. 30 of 2015 ( Subodh Kumar v. Vinod Kumar Agarwal and others) whereby application ( 32-C) for impleadment of first respondent has been allowed.
(2.) The first respondent filed an application before the trial court under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Section 141 and 146 C.P.C to be impleaded as party in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2011. The sixth respondent, Rameshwar Dayal Agrawal instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 94 of 2001 for partition of the disputed property which was decreed, after preparation of final decree, an execution case was filed. As per Amin report, all the parties were in possession of their respective shares, the share of the parties were marked but before preparation of Kurre-band, the sixth respondent/Rameshwar Dayal sold his share being ⅓rd to the first respondent. After purchasing of share of sixth respondent, the first respondent filed an application for impleadment in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2011 instituted under Order 9, Rule 13 to recall the ex parte decree. The application was rejected by the trial court but the revisional court relying upon the provision contained under Order 22, Rule 10 read with section 141 and 146 CPC held that a person who is not a party to the original suit but if interest has been created in the suit property by way of assignment or any other manner then he steps into shoes of that assignor and can with the leave of the Court contest the suit. It is noted in the impugned order that Rameshwar Dayal upon selling the property was no longer interest to contest the suit or the miscellaneous case for recalling the ex parte decree.
(3.) In these circumstances, I find no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.;