PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. - (1.) The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2013 whereby application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was rejected. Aggrieved of the same order, the respondents-defendants have moved a separate writ petition challenging the order vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was allowed.
(2.) In writ petition No.14265/2013, it is argued by counsel for the petitioner that in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed in January, 2008, the interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The parties whom he wants to implead have come in possession of the property knowing the fact that the lis was pending for cancellation of the sale deed.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 have opposed the writ petition. Their contention is that they are not the necessary parties in the suit as the relief claimed is for cancellation of the sale deed and even if they have entered into the possession of the property, it would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens.;