- (1.) The present petitioners-original plaintiffs have challenged the validity and legality of the orders dated 10.11.2009 and 24.2.2010 passed by the learned ACJM No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner no. 1 original plaintiff had filed a suit agains the present respondent no.2 original defendant seeking permanent injunction before the trial court. During the pendency of the suit, the disputed shop was transferred by the present petitioner no.1 in favour of the present petitioner no.2, who happens to be his son. The petitioner no.2, therefore, submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking his impleadment as party plaintiff in the said suit. The said application was made on 10.11.2009. However, without deciding the said application, the trial court passed the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 closing the evidence of the original plaintiff i.e. Petitioner no.1. Thereafter on the very next day i.e. On 11.11.2009, the trial court allowed the said application of the petitioner no.2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, by impleading him as plaintiff no.2 in the said suit. The petitioner no.2 plaintiff no.2 thereafter submitted an application for recalling the order dated 10.11.2009, by which the evidence of the original plaintiff was closed. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 24.2.2010. Being aggrieved with the said orders dated 10.11.2009 and 24.2.2010, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners that though the application filed by the petitioner no.2 seeking impleadment as party-plaintiff ws pending, the trial court had closed the evidence to be led by the petitioner no.1, who was the original plaintiff, and on the very next day the trial court permitted the petitioner no.2 to be impleaded as party plaintiff no. 2. According to him, after the transfer of the suit shop in favour of the plaintiff no.2, the plaintiff no.2 would not have any interest to proceed further and, therefore, he might not have led the evidence on the date fixed by the trial court, however, such opportunity should not be denied to the petitioner no.2, who is now the owner of the said shop.;