Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the trial Court on the plaintiff's application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code by which the petitioner's sons were impleaded as party in the suit for specific performance of contract.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract which is being contested by the petitioners. The petitioners took the plea in the written statement that the land in question is an ancestral property, therefore, no decree for specific performance of contract can be passed. According to the petitioners, their sons filed a suit for partition before the revenue Court and that suit has been decreed.;