- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 21st November, 2007 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the respondent-plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, wherein he had implored the Court to implead Damodar Lal as a party defendant.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that respondent No.2-Bimla Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, against the petitioner-defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.2-plainitff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC imploring that Damodar Soni S/o Kalyan Sahai Soni who is alleged to have sold the disputed land to petitioner respondent-Kailash Chand, be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. Learned trial Court dismissed this application for the reasons mentioned therein.
(3.) At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is found to have been filed not by the defendant-petitioner, but by the respondent No.2-plaintiff. The application which stood dismissed by the learned trial Court, had no bearing with the petitioner. If the learned trial Court had dismissed the application vide order dated 21st November, 2007, it could cause grievance to respondent No.2-plaintiff Smt. Bimla Devi and aggrieved with the impugned order she could take legal recourse, but in the instant writ petition it is found that the order dated 21st November, 2007 has been impugned by the petitioner-defendant who had no bearing with the application which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the impugned order. The extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked by the High Court only when the impugned order is found to be perverse but here in the instant case, the question of deciding the perversity or illegality of the impugned order does not arise, on the contrary, the petitioner has got no locus-standi to file the writ petition and he has got no right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.;