Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

Heard Sri Amol Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant herein is virtually aggrieved against the impleadment of respondent nos. 3 and 4 as appellants in civil appeal no. 41 of 2006 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d). The appeal is directed against the trial court order passed on 04.09.2006 whereby the application of some of the respondents filed under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the judgment/decree dated 26.07.2000 which was passed in favour of one Mohd. Ayub was rejected. The appellant has purchased the disputed property from the heirs of late Mohd. Ayub the decree holder and is aggrieved against the order dated 19.05.2016 passed on an application filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 under Order 1 Rule 10.

3. In nutshell facts of the case are that one Mohd. Ayub brought a suit for declaration and possession against five defendants. The suit was decreed in favour of Mohd. Ayub by judgment / decree dated 26.07.2000. The judgment / decree so passed gave rise to an application under Order 9 Rule 13 which was filed by three persons namely Syed Hasan Askari, Syed Zulfiqar Haider and Syed Jargan Haider. One of the applicants Syed Zulf