1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred before this Court on being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.11-A/09 (Ramit Kumar Pathak v. Pawan Kumar, Ramit Kumar Pathak v. Pawan Kumar Pathak and others), whereby the application filed by the Intervener Ramkishan Dubey under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC with the aid of section 151 of CPC has been allowed by the Court below and the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to implead the intervener Ramkishan as respondent No.3 in the suit proceedings and the case was fixed for 26.3.2010 for filing written statement by the intervener.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the proceedings of the trial Court are stand still because of the order of the stay passed by Division Bench of this Court on 9.11.2010.

3. The facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under :

“A Civil Suit bearing No.11A/09 was instituted by the plaintiff-Ramit Kumar against his father-respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar Pathak s/o late Shri Heeralal Pathak and respondent No.2 Bank of Maharashtra for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioner claims himself to be the son of respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar and grandson of late Shri Heeralal Pathak. It is asserted in the plaint that the petitioner and respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar owned a joint family property bearing House No.43/1816 situated in Topi Bazar, Lashkar Gwalior which was mortgaged by his father respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar without taking prior permission from the plaintiff. It is stated that respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar is involved in anti-social activity and therefore in order to fulfill his un-lawful (Ramit Kumar Pathak v. Pawan Kumar Pathak and others) demand the property was mortgaged by him (Pawan Kumar) with respondent No.2 Bank of Maharashtra.

4. In the said civil suit one intervention application was moved under Order 1 rule 10 CPC read with section 151 of CPC by intervener Ramkishan Dubey, who had died during the pendency of the present writ petition and his legal representative Mohan Prasad Dubey has been brought on record. In the said application marked as Annexure P-4 (page 21), it was pleaded that intervener Ramkishan was the legal heir of Heeralal, who had executed one registered Will (Annexure P-6) on 20.12.1989 in favour of intervener Ramkishan Dubey. In that Will all the facts were mentioned that Heeralal had died issue-less. The brother of Heeralal and wife of both (Heeralal's wife and his brother's wife) had also died issue-less, therefore, with a view to take care of all the movable and immovable properties intervener Ramkishan Dubey who was non else but son of the sister of Heeralal was adopted by Heeralal during the span of his lifetime. The adoption deed (Annexure P-7 at page 30 of reply) was also executed to this effect.

5. At this stage it may be mentioned here that against the order dated 18.3.2010 passed on the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, preferred by the intervener Ramkishan Dubey (since deceased), the review petition was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 17.9.2010. Under these circumstances, present petitioner has moved this court challenging the orders dated 18.3.2010 as well as 17.9.2010.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that intervener was nowhere in picture nor has at any concern with the suit property. He was not legal heir of Heeralal and in the alleged Will (Annexure P~6) dated 20.12.1989 disputed property was not described, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner Ramkishan was in fact a new person who could not be permitted to be joined/added in the suit proceedings against the wishes of the plaintiff. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on the decision in the case of Anokhelal v. Radhamohan Bansal and others [1997(1) JLJ 252]. It is therefore submitted that th