- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2011, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.4, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an immovable property situated in Koli Pada, Sripura, Near Koli Pada Inspectory School, Kota, was owned by Late Shri Brij Mohan, which came in his share on the basis of a partition. The said house was sold by Shri Brij Mohan to the petitioner, Abdul Rasheed, by an agreement to sale dated 26.6.2007. Part of the consideration was paid by the petitioner at that time. The last date for getting the sale registered was fixed as 31.12.2007. But before getting the sale registered in favour of the petitioner, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Shivlal, a nephew of Shri Brij Mohan against Mr. Brij Mohan. In the said suit the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2. By order dated 7.7.2007, an interim order was granted by the learned trial court. Thus, during the pendency of the interim order, the sale could not be registered in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, Brij Mohan died and his legal heirs were taken on record. Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent NO.2 filed a suit for partition and for declarating a Will dated 1.11.2008 as null and void before the learned Judge against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In this suit, the petitioner was not made a party. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as party respondent. By order dated 16.7.2011, the learned Judge dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner's application has wrongly been dismissed on the ground that the agreement to sale is not a registered document. Therefore, it cannot be read into evidence. Moreover, in another case, filed by the owner's nephew for permanent injunction, the petitioner was impleaded as party. Therefore, even in the present case, which is partition suit and deals with property in dispute, the petitioner should also be impleaded as party. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by this Court.;