The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of rejections of applications under CPC rules and the relevance of prior judgments to the current case.

1. Heard Sri. Sachin V.R. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Anusha, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Caveator.

2. First respondent herein has initiated final decree proceedings under Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC in FDP No. 15/2013 in order to enjoy the fruits of decree obtained by her in O.S. No. 16/2003, which came to be affirmed in R.A. No. 52/2011. During the pendency of said final decree proceedings petitioners herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC to come on record. Said application has been rejected by Lower Appellate Court with the following observation:

"7. Point No. 1:- Perused the xxxxx 27.04.1988. No where in the application, she has stated that she had purchased the same under the registered sale deed. Further, she has not furnished the documents to show that she had purchased the property from the joint family members of the plaintiffs and defendants and no identification of the property from the joint family members of the plaintiffs and defendants and no identification of the property has been given in the application. In the absence of material documentary evidence, it is not proper to implead the applicant as proposed respondent as sought in the application. If she has produced the documents, for having purchased the property from the joint family members, the court could have verified the documents and passed suitable orders. The matter xxxxxx in the Negative."

3. In the meanwhile, first respondent herein is said to have filed a suit O.S. No. 29/2006 for a perpetual injunction against defendants therein namely, writ petitioners herein, which came to be decreed on 11.08.2011. Appeal filed by the writ petitioners in RA No. 35/2011 has also been dismissed on 06.03.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are said to have filed RSA No. 630/2014 against concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below and in the said second appeal an order has been passed on 12.12.2014 directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of suit property. The suit property in the said suit i.e. O.S. No. 29/2006 is item No. 3 of FDP No. 15/2013. In that view of the matter, petitioners herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC to stay the Final Decree Proceedings. Said application came to be rejected on the ground that earlier attempts made by the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in RA No. 52/2011 (which was against judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 16/2003, which is the subject matter of FDP No. 15/2013) had been rejected on 04.07.2013 and same had reached finality. As could be seen from pleadings petitioners' claim before various forums seems to have changed its colour from time-to-time namely, at one point of time petitioners claimed to be the agreement holders but later on they contended that original owner of the property in question had executed a Will in their favour, since petitioners took care of him during his last days. However, these contentions have not been accepted by the learned District Judge as could be seen from the order dated 04.07.2013 dismissing the application of petitioners for getting impleaded in RA No. 52/2011. Undisputedly, petitioners have not challenged the order passed on 04.07.2013 dismissing I.A. No. 2 in RA No. 52/2011.

4. Sri. Sachin V.R. learned counsel appearing for petitioners assailing the order under challenge would contend that trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners namely, I.A. No. III under Rule 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Narendra Nath Shetty vs. P.S. Rama Rao Pisey, ILR 2009 Kar. 2870, whereunder this Court has taken a view that application for impleading can be entertained and granted even in a proceedings under Section 54 of CPC.

5. As could be seen from the said judgment, successful plaintiffs had initiated final decree proceedings for