PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.8.2007 under absolutely erroneous assumption that the trial court while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has decided the contentious issue involved in the suit with respect to the right under which the newly added parties are in possession of the disputed premises, and allowed the applicants' application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and made them party in the suit. It appears that learned counsel for the Ahmed Ali. v. Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Bhilwara and Ors. petitioner has not even read the impugned order wherein the court below very specifically observed that prima -facie from the documents, it appears that Devendra Kumar Patel and Savita Ben whose possession has already been admitted in the plaint itself, appears to be partners of the firm.
(3.) THE words, specifically, used by the court are prima -facie. It is undisputed that at this stage, the trial court could not have decided contentious issue on application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but could have passed order on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC after considering merit in claim of the applicants for the purpose of finding out whether there is primafacie substance in the claim of applicants or not ? So far as possession in the premises of the persons who have been impleaded as parties by the impugned order is specifically admitted by the plaintiff in para no.5 of the plaint. The plaintiff for the reasons best known to him, even after admitting the possession of the applicants, though in different capacity, yet they have challenged the order passed by the court below knowing it well that in case, decree for eviction Ahmed Ali. v. Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Bhilwara and Ors. in the plaintiff's suit will be passed, the applicants are to be ousted.;