1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/applicant has approached this Court against rejection of the application filed under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC by the impugned order dated 15.2.2016 in Civil Suit No.32A/2015 by the trial Court.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. A suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 7.3.2011 was filed by the petitioner against two persons, namely; Smt. Savitri Verma w/o late Bhanwar Verma and Ms. Neena Singh d/o late Bhanwar Verma (defendants No.1 and 2) in respect of the registered agreement dated 7.3.2011 relating to the suit property. The aforesaid suit has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.222-A/2013 by Eleventh Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior. It appears that no further proceedings as against the aforesaid decree has been either instituted or pending consideration as on date. However, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein who are grand-son and grand-daughter, namely; Asin and Smt. Akshata have filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that the alleged agreement dated 7.3.2011 be declared as null and void as against the plaintiffs'. Further relief for permanent injunction has been sought restraining the petitioner herein not to interfere with the suit property as well as injunction against other defendants' not to alienate the suit property or part therewith without partition of the joint Hindu family property. The family tree has been described in paragraph 3 of the pliant. The suit property is described to be ancestral property of the ownership of one Smt. Lakshmi Bai which was devolved upon her daughter-in-law, Smt. Chandi Bai wherefrom the property was later on devolved upon late Bhanvar Singh Verma and to his wife, Smt. Savitri Bai, son late Narendra Verma, and daughters, Smt.Mona, Kumari Neena Singh and Kumari Seema. Present plaintiffs' are son and daughter of late Narendra Verma.

3. However, the present petitioner was not added as a party to the suit filed by the plaintiffs'.

4. The suit was filed on 22.8.2014. The evidence of plaintiffs' was fixed for 21.4.2015 and thereafter evidence was closed. Defendants' evidence was to commence on 23.4.2015 but on that the Presiding Officer was on leave. However, the evidence on affidavits was submitted by the defendants' on 24.4.2015. On that very date (24.4.2015), application under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the present petitioner to be added as party.

5. Trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that the respondents'/plaintiffs' are dominus litus and they cannot be forced to add the petitioner as party/defendant. Moreover, the application for impleadment has been filed belatedly and, therefore, the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly, rejected the application.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while criticizing the order impugned contends that the trial Court has committed grave illegality and irregularity in the matter of dealing with the application filed under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC. Besides, while dealing with the application, the trial Court was required to address upon as to whether the petitioner has to be heard in the context of the principles of natural justice. That has not been done. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was party to the agreement dated 7.3.2011. Defendants' No.1 and 2 had executed the agreement dated 7.3.2011 in favour of the petitioner. Decree dated 28.1.2005 (supra) was passed based on the agreement dated 7.3.2011 directing specific performance of the agreement in favour of petitioner. Under these circumstances, if the agreement to sell dated 7.3.2011 is sought to be declared as null and void as against the plaintiffs', in all fairness, the petitioner ought to have been heard in the context thereof. Further, it is contended that in fact and in effect, the