1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 20th April, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, allowed Mahesh Chand to be impleaded as party defendant no.6 in the suit no. 30/11 (Sohan Singh v. Harish Chand & Ors.).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner-plaintiff has been in possession of the property in dispute. He has sought no relief against the respondent no.1 Mahesh Chand, who has been allowed to be impleaded as party defendant no.6 in suit. Thus, from no stretch of imagination respondent no.1 can be said to be a necessary or proper party. Learned trial court has, sans assigning any reason has ordered him to be impleaded as party defendant, hence, the impugned order being bad in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.

4. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is noticed that the respondent no.1 Mahesh Chand filed an application under