1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur below Exhs.211 and 215 in Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2001.
2. It can be seen from the record of the case that earlier, the petitioner had filed Civil Revision Application No.121 of 2011 against the impugned order which has been permitted to be converted into the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The broad facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has filed Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2001 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural). During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner preferred the application Exh.215 under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for being impleaded as a defendant in the said suit which came to be rejected by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by the impugned order and hence, the present petition before this Court.
4. The question, therefore, which is required to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner is necessary and proper party to the suit or not. Apropos this, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed by learned trial Judge by not recording any reasons on the real and substantial issue which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice.
5. It is by now well settled that the persons who are likely to be affected by the suit can be impleaded as parties at any stage, but the fact remains that 1 to 90 members of respondent No.2 society have approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.7863 of 2001 and in the said writ petition, the present petitioner is writ petitioner No.66 wherein there is specific mention regarding Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2001. Therefore, it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner being writ petitioner No.66 that Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2001 is filed since 2001. In spite of that, the petitioner has made the application before the learned trial Judge for being impleaded as party defendant after inordinate delay of 9 years. Even otherwise also, this Court is in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge.
6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any substance in this petition and hence, the same is required to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) pathan Page 3 of 3