1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 11.8.2010 passed below application Exh.66 (withdrawal pursis) and the order dated 12.8.2010 passed below application Exh.62 (application for joining party) in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2009.

2. The petitioners who claim to be the co-owners of the land bearing Block Nos.1336 and 1390 filed Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2009 seeking to declare that the sale deed dated 1.5.2009 executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 and confirmation deed dated 14.7.2009 executed by defendant No.6 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and confirmation deed dated 14.10.2009 executed by the defendant No.5 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not binding to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from developing the land under the above-said sale deeds or from dealing with or creating any charge on the said lands.

3. It appears that on account of out of Court settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs submitted the withdrawal pursis at Exh.66 for disposal of the suit stating that on account of settlement in respect of the suit property, the suit was not required to be prosecuted further.

4. It further appears that on the same day, i.e. on 11.8.2010, the respondent No.7 preferred an application at Exh.62 to join as plaintiff in the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs executed agreement to sell on 27.4.2009 with possession in respect of their shares in the property by accepting different amounts from him as stated in the application and the plaintiffs intended to sell the suit land to the defendants. If the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the suit, it will affect his rights.

5. Learned Judge passed order dated 11.8.2010 below withdrawal pursis at Exh.66 refusing the request of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit on the ground that the application Exh.62 was allowed and third party was ordered to be joined in the suit.

6. By the order passed below Exh.62 dated 12.8.2010, the application Exh.62 was allowed and third party was permitted to be joined as plaintiff in the suit.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Kashyap Joshi appearing for the petitioners submitted that it was absolute right of the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit unconditionally and therefore, withdraw the suit ought not to have been refused by the learned Judge. Mr. Joshi submitted that the learned Judge committed serious error in permitting third party to join as plaintiff in the suit though presence of the third party is not required to decide the controversy in the suit. Mr. Joshi submitted that the only right of respondent No.7 was to get agreement to sell enforced in respect of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land but on the basis of such agreement, the respondent No.7 would not become necessary party to the suit. Mr. Joshi submitted that in any case, joining of third party as plaintiff against the wish of the plaintiffs was not at all permissible, especially when law permits only transposition of any of the defendants as plaintiff. Mr. Joshi submitted that the suit was not sought to be withdrawn on the basis of any compromise deed between the parties so as to invite order of the Court to declare the compromise as lawful and to pass decree in terms of the compromise. Mr. Joshi submitted that neither was it open to the learned Judge to refuse the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit nor was it permissible for third party to join as plaintiff in the suit. Mr. Joshi, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge has exceeded in his jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders below application Exh.62 and below the withdrawal pursis Exh.66.

8. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel appearing for respondent No.7 submitted that since the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw the suit on the ground that the