SBCWP NO.8748/2007. 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8748/2007. Gopali and anr. Vs. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Gangapurcity and ors. Date of order :- 29/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Bipin Gupta for the petitioners. Shri Girish Khandelwal for the respondents. **** The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 1/10/2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the court below despite of fact that there is finding to the effect that they are proper parties but even then, they were not considered to be necessary parties hence, finding of the court below is quite contradictory and on that score alone, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners are not necessary parties as has been held by the court below and otherwise the suit is pending between the parties for last 23 years and for one or the other reasons, suit could not be decided and now when the matter is pending for final hearing and decision, the petitioners-applicants moved an application for their impleadment. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may not be SBCWP NO.8748/2007. 2 entertained because acceptance of the application of the petitioners would mean that they have to be given right of filing the written-statement, to lead evidence and even to ask for chance of cross- examination of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. This may take another few years. It was, therefore, submitted that precisely for all these reasons that the application of the petitioners was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, legal heirs are necessary parties in a suit for partition hence, without their impleadment, any decree passed in such a suit, may affect right of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of both the counsel and perusal of the order dated 1/10/2007 reveals that the application was moved by the petitioners at the belated stage and if same is accepted then, it would mean delay in proceedings for another few years, more so when suit is pending for last 23 years. Learned counsel for petitioners was asked as to why they cannot raise objection in execution if ultimately some decree is passed adverse to their rights. Counsel for the petitioners only submitted that this can be done but it would otherwise result in multiplicity of litigations. SBCWP NO.8748/2007. 3 In my view, the application so moved by the petitioners at belated stage was rightly not allowed and otherwise, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise any objection as is available to them under the law if any decree is passed and execution is sought which otherwise is adverse to the interest of the petitioners. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil