- (1.) The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order dated 19.09.2016, vide which their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the property in dispute belonged to the petitioners. In 1972, the said property was transferred to Late Gurdayal Singh, as there was apprehension that the property would come within the ceiling as prescribed under the Ceiling Act. It is also contended that Late (2 of 4) [CW-14505/2016] Gurdayal Singh entered into an agreement to sale with Rohtash Kumar, who has filed a suit and the present petitioners have also filed a suit against legal representatives of Late Gurdayal Singh for declaring the sale deed executed in 1972 as a sham transaction. It is further contended that in the suit filed by the petitioners against legal representatives of Late Gurdayal Singh, the present plaintiff Rohtash Kumar has been impleaded as a party, and therefore, the contention is that the present petitioners are also necessary party in the suit filed by Rohtash Kumar against legal representatives of Late Gurdayal Singh.
(3.) In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Sumtibai and Ors. Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm, AIR 2007 SC 3166 and M/s.Aliji Monoji & Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 64.;