- (1.) : 1.The present petition has been preferred by the interveners, who have preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No. 116 of 2002, whereby, they have claimed to be the legal heirs of one Sri Abdul Sattar. The present respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs, who are also claiming the suit property on the basis that they are the legal heirs of said Abdul Sattar.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i)Title Suit was filed by the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 bearing Title Suit No. 116 of 2002, whereby they are claiming ownership upon the suit property on the basis that they are the legal heirs of one Sri Abdul Sattar. Necessary evidences have also been led before the trial court by the original plaintiffs; (ii)It also appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioners have preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as interveners on the ground that they are also the legal heirs of said Abdul Sattar; .(iii)Whatever evidences have been given prima facie are not linking them with the ownership looking to the nature of the suit filed by the original plaintiffs and the application of the present petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; .(iv)It appears that if this application is allowed, it will change the basic nature of the suit. The original plaintiffs are not claiming any ownership against the present petitioners. .2. .(v)It also appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioners are raising objections time and again before various authorities whenever plans have been approved and looking to Annexure -3 and 4 earlier petitions were also filed but they were not allowed by this Court; .(vi)It also appears from the facts of the case that the trial court has arrived at a conclusion that there is no prima facie link between the present petitioners and the said Abdul Sattar nor the present petitioners are concerned with the ownership or possession of the land. Thus, they are totally stranger to the suit property and if this type of applications are allowed, it will cause further delay in deciding the suit and it will change the nature of the present suit. Looking to the facts of the case, I see no reason to take any deviation from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court. No error has been committed by the trial court in deciding the application, preferred under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no substance in this application. Hence the same is hereby dismissed.
(3.) IF the petitioners file a separate and independent suit, the same will be decided on its own merits and on the basis of the evidences without being influenced by the aforesaid order as well as the order passed by the trial court on the application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;