( 1 ) IN this suit the Plaintiff has sought partition, rendition of accounts and declaration against the legal heirs of her deceased brother in respect of properties belonging to her mother late Dr. (Mrs.) Raseel Kohli. One of the properties which falls for consideration is 6-B, Jangpura Extension, Mathura Road, New Delhi (suit property ).

( 2 ) IN this suit the Applicants, namely, Mrs. Harnam Kaur, Mrs. Mahinder Kaur and Shri Jagjit Singh, all partners of M/s. Texla Service Centre, 6-B, Jangpura Extension, Mathura Road, New Delhi, have filed an application under Order XXII Rule 10 and under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code through their Advocate Shri K. C. Dewan. It has been pleaded, inter alia, that the Plaintiff has prayed for a Declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property. These applicants, who are admittedly in possession of the suit property, claimed to be the owners thereof by virtue of "being assignees of the interest of the deceased Major K. V. Kohli".

( 3 ) THIS application has been strenuously opposed by the Plaintiff and it is her submission that the Applicants are trespassers of the suit property; that they are not the assignees of her brother late Major K. V. Kohli who had been restrained from transferring the said property by Court orders; that they have always been fully aware of the orders passed by various Courts; that he application is hopeless time barred; that they have taken illegal possession of the suit property, in contempt of the orders of this Court from the Judgment Debtor Shri Khairati Lal in S. No. 1080/79 who had undertaken to this Court to handover possession only to late Dr. (Mrs.) Raseel Kohli; that three Sale Deeds dated 6. 12. 1988 were allegedly executed in defiance of the status quo order passed by this Court on 23. 1. 1986, 8. 4. 1986 and 3. 10. 1986; that the Applicants herein had withdrawn their suit on 1. 9. 1989 for Specific Performance, being Suit No. 188/86; that the suit property was restrained from being sold, transferred or assigned by orders dated 14. 3. 1978, 18. 4. 1978, 20. 2. 79 and 2. 3. 79 in Suit No. 259/78; that mutation was illegally carried out on the basis of fabricated and forged documents; that Late Major K. V. Kohli s Probate Petition bearing No. 379/87, wherein he had propounded an alleged Will dated 7. 3. 1986, had been dismissed in default on 13. 5. 1992; that the Applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties in the present suit; and that the alleged assignment of the suit property in their favour has been challenged by the plaintiff in Suit No. 695/90.

( 4 ) I will first deal with the objection pertaining to limitation. The Applicants were fully aware of the pendency of this suit, at least on 14. 3. 1990 when they were served with a copy of the plaint of Suit No. 695/90 alongwith the Injunction passed on that date. No. Rejoinder has been filed and, therefore, these averments contained in para 3 of the Preliminary Objection of the Plaintiff s reply remained uncontroverted and untraversed. No explanation has been proffered as to why the application has been filed in 1998 whereas knowledge of the pendency of the suit had been obtained by the Applicants on 14. 3. 1990. The application is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation and is rejected, inter alia, on this ground.

( 5 ) EVEN otherwise, if the merits of the case are to be considered, there is no justification for impleading the Applicants in these proceedings, which are admittedly for the partition of properties to which the Plaintiff and the legal heirs of her late brother have succeeded, being properties of late Dr. (Mrs.) Raseel Kohli. Some capital was sought to be made by the Applicants predicated from the prayers in the plaint inasmuch as the Plaintiff had sough a partition determining the shares in the suit property, which was described to be in the absolute ownership of late Dr. (Mrs.) Raseel Kohli. It was argued that since