Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OA No.19/2011 which in turn was filed in CS(OS) No.1098/2008. The said order dated 05.02.2013 is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.

2. The learned Single Judge has, by the impugned order, set aside the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by a Joint Registrar of this Court in IA No.15286/2008 in CS(OS) No.1098/2008. The Joint Registrar had, by the said order dated 14.12.2010, rejected the application filed by respondent no. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking impleadment as a defendant in the aforementioned suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Joint Registrar rejecting the application of respondent no. 1 for impleadment as a defendant in the suit, the respondent no. 1 had preferred an appeal under Rule 4 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘O.S. Rules') before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has by the impugned order allowed the said appeal and impleaded respondent no. 1 as a party to the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said impugned order has filed the present appeal.

4. The respondent no. 1 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal and has contended that the impugned order has been passed in an appeal from an order passed by a Joint Registrar of this Court and, thus, the impugned order has not been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the present appeal is not maintainable by virtue of section 100A of the Code.

5. The disputes between parties relates to a plot of land measuring 460 sq. yds. bearing no. 39, Motia Khan Dump Scheme, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”) which was allotted jointly to one Brij Lal Mehra and Gurdayal Singh by the Delhi Improvement Trust sometime in 1956. Brij Lal Mehra expired in 1960 and was survived by his two sons and a daughter (who has been arrayed as defendant no. 2 in the suit). Both the sons of late Sh. Brij Lal Mehra were unmarried and expired in the year 1999. Accordingly, his daughter, namely defendant no. 1, is claiming one half share of the suit property as a legal heir of late Sh. Brij Lal Mehra. There is no dispute with regard to the undivided share of the said property belonging to late Sh. Brij Lal Mehra and/ or the claim of defendant no. 1 to the said share. The disputes relate to Gurdyal Singh's share of the said property (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). Sh. Gurdayal Singh also expired in the year 1974 and was not survived by any class I legal heir. His brother Rajender Singh filed a probate case being Probate Case No.193/1978 claiming to be the legal heir of Gurdayal Singh and was granted the letters of administration by an order dated 19.12.1979 passed in the said probate case. Rajinder Singh passed away on 02.10.1989.

6. The plaintiff is claiming to be the owner of the suit property belonging to Gurdayal Singh. The plaintiff claims that Rajender Singh had, prior to his demise on 02.10.1989, sold the suit property by executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Raghubir Singh and executing an Agreement to Sell in favour of his wife Darshan Kaur. Both the General Power of Attorney as well as the Agreement to Sell are dated 21.08.2009. It is claimed that Raghubir Singh and Darshan Kaur had further sold the suit property to the plaintiff by a registered General Power of Attorney and an Agreement to Sell.

7. Respondent no. 1 is also claiming ownership of the suit property through late Sh. Rajender Singh, as being one of his legal heirs. It is stated by respondent no. 1 that Rajender Sin