- (1.) Through this appeal the appellant is challenging the judgment dated 1.4.2013 passed by learned Single Judge affirming the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur.
(2.) The brief but necessary facts forming background of the instant controversy are that a portion of the property known as "Jalam Vilas" was sold to Padmawati Art Creation Private Limited through a sale deed registered on 20.4.2005. The petitioner-appellant claiming a right of pre-emption filed a suit before the court on 20.4.2006 for having possession of the property concerned. Respondent Ajay Singh on 15.12.2006 submitted an application as per provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to become party to the proceedings. Shri Ajay Singh claimed a better right of pre-emption vis-a-vis the plaintiff petitioner. By the order dated 7.7.2010 the trial court accepted the application and permitted Shri Ajay Singh to join the suit proceedings as party. To challenge the order aforesaid the plaintiff petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 1.4.2013, hence this appeal is before us.
(3.) While dismissing the writ petition learned Single Bench was of the opinion as under:- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be validly assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, is a discretionary order by the trial courts, which is usually passed to curtail the multiplicity of the litigation. If the applicant has prima-facie shown before the trial court that he has some interest in the property in question, and he has right to have a say in the matter, which can be seen in such averments and semblance of evidence produced before the trial court, the impleadment of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of this Court. Any further observations or determination of the rights, duties and obligation of rival claims of the parties at this stage by this Court can only affect the trial adversely, which cannot be done, to say the least. 10. In the case of Jai Singh and ors. V/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr, 2010 9 SCC 385in para 15 thereof, the Hon'ble Apex Court uses the words "the exercise of jurisdiction must be within the wellrecognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. 11. In the perspective of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order passed by learned trial court allowing the applicant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC calls for no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves dismissal.";