Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (original-applicant) challenging the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track)No.2, Alwar(hereinafter to be referred as the 'lower court), dismissing the application of the applicant for impleading him as party defendant in the suit.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent No.2 (original-plaintiff) has filed a civil suit being No. 209/2006 against the present respondent Nos.3 to 6 (original-defendants) in the lower court seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 31.12.2005 in respect of the suit land. The present petitioner (original-applicant) submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure praying that to implead him as the party defendant in the said suit, on the ground that the agricultural land in question being an ancestral property, he had an undivided share in the said property and that if any decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, his rights would be affected. The said application came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.7.2007.Being aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. SC Gupta for the petitioner that though the petitioner is the son of the present respondent No.3 who is one of the defendants in the suit, he is not having good relations with the respondent No.3 and that another suit for partition of the properties including the suit land, has already been filed by the petitioner against his father. Mr. Gupta placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in case of Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. and ors (2007) 10 SCC 82 and in case of Mumbai International Airport (P.) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. and others, (2010) 7 SCC, 417, has submitted that the petitioner is a proper party in the suit and his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure could not have been dismissed by the lower court.;