Rajiv Sharma, J.

In the instant case, the sole controversy involved is as to whether the order passed by the revisional court setting aside the order passed by the trail court, which has allowed the application of the petitioners for impleadment is legally justified or not.

Heard Sri Javed Murtaza, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Naseerullah and Sri P.C. Srivastava, counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. Before adverting to the aforesaid question, It would be apt to mention certain brief facts of the case, which are that J.J. Rice initiated a suit for declaration impleading therein Mr. S.B. Caleb as defendant and the same was registered as Regular Suit No. 337 of 1988. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 5.1.1991. Opposite party No. 3 Shakeel Ahmad Khan of present writ petition, who was an allottee of the portion of the house as tenant and in possession, filed a suit for cancellation of said decree and for grant of permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 259 of 1992, seeking following relief:

(a) That the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1991, passed in Regular Suit No. 337 of 198