SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) ASSISTANT Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying that they be impleaded as a party to the afore-noticed regular second appeal. Upon notice non-applicant-respondents filed reply taking preliminary objections with regard to the very maintainability of the application as well as denying the averments on merits. They also stated that the application was misconceived.
(2.) AT the very outset it must be noticed that the regular second appeal preferred by Jasdeep Singh against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 23.11.1998. The order of dismissal reads as under :- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. While issuing notice to show cause why this appeal be not admitted vide order dated 12.11.1998 a reference was made to Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960. In accordance with this rule the fragmentation of the plot was not permissible. The learned counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Chander Prakash Malhotra v. R.B.S. Chahal, 1994(1) RCR(Rent) 312 wherein the learned Judge of this Court while relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 4974 and 2305 of 1992, has observed that if there was no partition by metes and bounds and there was no fragmentation of the plot, the provisions of this rule are not attracted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is a concurrent view taken by the learned Courts below that the partition of the building is being done floor-wise and not of the plot by metes and bounds. The obvious result is that there is no fragmentation of the plot and there is only the distribution of the building already constructed on the said plot. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed." It may further be noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of V.P. Malhotra vide order dated 24.11.1992 had set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it declared Rule 14 invalid. However, the appeal otherwise, was allowed by the Apex Court. Relying upon the above order of the Supreme Court another Bench of this Court on 1.12.1993 had permitted partition in terms of bye-laws and as per the judgment and decree of the Courts below. After the dismissal of the regular second appeal, the parties to the suit approached the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh for issuing an appropriate letter and recording the ownership in terms of the decree. Obviously, the applicants did not actually want to divide the plot. This request was kept pending for one reason or the other. The parties to the suit then filed a contempt petition in the High Court, which is also stated to be pending. Thereafter, on 10.3.2000 nearly 1.5 years after the passing of the order, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 as well as another application under Section 151 of the Code had been filed for modification of the order which has already attained finality between the parties to the suit/appeal.
(3.) THIS Court is primarily concerned with the merits of the very maintainability of the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. It is an admitted case between the parties that the Chandigarh Administration was not a party to the suit or at any subsequent stage before any Court till disposal of the regular second appeal by this Court till 23.11.1998. The substance of the prayer is that the Assistant Estate Officer should be impleaded as a party and the order should be recalled. It is contended that the interpretation of Rule 14 in relation to partition should be interpreted by this Court.;