Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The petitioners (original-applicants)have preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 151/2001, rejecting their application filed under Or. I R. 10 of C.P.C.
(2.) The present respondent No. 2 (original-plaintiff), has filed the suit against the present respondent No. 3 (original -defendant) seeking his eviction from the suit property and for the permanent injunction. The present petitioners, who are the brothers of Dayal Singh, husband of the respondent No. 2 (plaintiff), had submitted an application before the trial court under Order I Rule 10 seeking their impleadment as the party defendants in the said suit. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the petition.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Kumawat for the petitioners that the petitioners being the co-owners of the suit property, are necessary party in the suit for eviction and that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting their application seeking their impleadment as the party defendants. He also submitted that the petitioners have already filed a separate suit challenging the Will allegedly executed by late Shri Ram Singh, father of the petitioners, in favour of the respondent No. 2 and that the suit property being originally owned by the said Ram Singh, the petitioners had become the co-owners along with Dayal Singh after the death of Ram Singh. As against that the learned counsel Shri Gaur for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is the only owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will executed by Shri Ram Singh. He also submitted that the respondent No. 3 original defendant had served a notice on the respondent No. 2 admitting her ownership of the suit property and therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Or. I Rule 10 of C.P.C.;