( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment as a party to the suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondents 2 to 6.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has filed a suit for issuance of perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 6 alleging that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were employees of respondent No. 1 and in their capacity as employees were inducted into possession of the premises belonging to the society respondent No. 1, which employment having come to an end, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were bound to restore possession to respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as per the averments made in the application dated 5. 2. 1996, under Order I Rule 10, CPC, it is the petitioner and not the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the suit property. The sale consideration at the time of acquisition of the property in the year 1985 was paid out of the bank account of the petitioner but the sale deed which was executed in 1985 was so manipulated as to be executed in the name of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that if the petitioner