Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) Counsel for the defendants-petitioners (hereafter 'the defendants') submitted that the impugned order dated 18.7.2018 impleading one Chhagan Lal as co-plaintiff on an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC is completely misdirected. He submitted that in the facts of the case where the respondent-plaintiff had sought impleadment as co-plaintiff for reason of his father Madhoprasad's (the original plaintiff) infirmity, the trial court ought to have proceeded under Order 32, Rule 15 CPC to address the issue and not on application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.
(2.) Perused the impugned order.
(3.) Before the trial court, there is no evident defence of the defendants to the application for impleadment as to the non-applicability of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC or the applicability of Order 32, Rule 15 CPC to the facts stated in the application for impleadment. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to allow the defendants to set up a new case before this Court. Instead I would set the defendants free to move an application for review of the order dated 18.7.2018 before the trial court. On such a review application being filed, the trial court should address it on its own merit without being influenced by the liberty to file review granted by this Court. ;