Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 19-5-2016, passed by the learned District Judge-II, Bokaro, rejecting the prayer for impleadment of the petitioner in Title Appeal No. 38/1998.
(2.) The facts as narrated by the petitioner is that he had purchased some land from respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 14 (the plaintiffs of Suit No. 16/93 and respondents of Title Appeal No. 38/98). It is stated that he had purchased part of the suit land when Title Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 of the present writ, had been dismissed for default on 10-1-2000 and the restoration petition was also dismissed on 12-8-2005. The order of dismissal was upheld by the High Court whereafter the respondent preferred S.L.P. No. 36399 of 2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30-10-2015 remained the matter for rehearing to the learned lower appellate Court. It is at this stage that the petitioner moved a petition dated 16-4-2016 before the learned lower appellate Court for impleading him as a party in the appeal which was rejected by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has contended that neither the appellant nor the respondents had filed any written objection to the prayer, of the petitioner, for his impleadment as a party in the appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased part of the suit property after the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/vendors. It is argued that he has stepped into the shoes of the contesting respondents and has acquired a valuable right to protect his right, title and interest in the property. It is submitted that since the respondents have transferred their right, title and interest, they have lost interest in contesting the appeal and in case the respondents/vendors do not prosecute the case sincerely then it shall adversely affect the interest of the petitioner. On the said grounds it is submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the mandate of O. XXII, Rule 10 and O. 1, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and erred in law in rejecting the petition for impleadment of the petitioner as a party in the appeal. To buttress the argument reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., 2013 5 SCC 397.;